President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I've spent the morning thinking about the Electoral College and just how profoundly unfair it is.

There's 436 electoral voters based on population with 102 with senators plus two of DC's three to get to 538. Winning the EC is majority plus 1, which gets you to 270.

So that means* with a population of 328.2 million each population proportional electoral voter represents 753,000 people, which is more then the populations of three states and DC. Alaska is 731k, DC is 705k, Vermont is 623k and Wyoming is the smallest state with 578,000 people

The Electoral College is here to stay, at least for the rest of my lifetime, but it needs to be reset to make it more proportional. To do that, the population value of EC voter needs to represent the population of the smallest state. So, Wyoming is the baseline, and using its current population, that would increase the Electoral College to 568 proportional votes, plus 102 for a total of 670, and to win the presidency, you need 336 EC votes.

Doing that would also increase the size of the House, which is also something that needs to be done.

Of course, I would take it a step further, and add in Puerto Rico's population, making the country's population 331.4 million for 573 proportional EC votes, plus one for the assorted territories. so to win you need 337 electoral college votes to win.

True population Electoral College helps big and medium sized states. California would add 15 House/EC voters, while Texas would add 14.

But some rough math has 37 states adding at least one seat/voter while the remainder would hang tight at their current number as no one would lose.

It would be a dramatic expansion but, honestly, this should have been decades ago. It has made the Electoral College profoundly undemocratic as the number hasn't kept pace with the population.

*Numbers have been somewhat rounded to make the maths simpler.

 

I can't believe you're not doing political analysis at one of the major networks.

 

South Carolina's other senator is black.

 

CNN is a good 30-45 minutes behind reality (aka the AP) in everything.
James has reclaimed the lead in the Michigan Senate race.

 

And Republican. I specifically said Democrat.

 

I don’t even give a shit about Peters now. Senate’s gone anyway.

 

Your double standard is tattooed on your forehead. Why do Republicans not have to change? Why should they be allowed to slip further into the racist authoritarian trap?

 

Seriously.

 

Because. That’s why.

 

It is true....less than six percent to count.

yeah, I was about to say Tim Scott. They also elected an Indian Governor. And they just elected a quasi open gay senator. #wokeststate

 

You said putting up a black candidate was a losing strategy because the state was racist. Except they currently have a black senator. So maybe it's an ideological issue more than a racial one.

 

Oregon status: trippin’ balls