TexasCHLforum.com

This seems to be a hot button of the Progressives. The underlying premise here is that the Great Compromise was a mistake, and that it is unfair to give less weight to the votes of Citizens in more populous states, which the current system does. But I hardly ever hear talk about the other part of this compromise, namely, adjusting the number of US Senators. After all, if it is unfair to give my vote less weight simply because I happen to live in a state like Texas with a large population, then surely it is also unfair to have less proportional representation in the Senate for large states as well.

If we keep the number of Senators at 100, that would mean that we give states one Senator for each 1% of the total population they hold. Using 2019 population data from http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ yields some interesting results, such as:

Only 39 states populations round to 1% or higher. So 11 US states, and the District of Columbia, would have no representation in the US Senate.

52 of the 100 Senators would come from just 9 states.

The 2 most populous states (California and Texas) would control 21 of the 100 US Senate seats.

While I welcome the elimination of Senate seats for liberal strongholds like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Hawaii, and as a Texan I would "benefit", I do not support either idea. Rather, I think that it is important to give weight to the opinions of folks in small states, in both the Senate and Presidential elections.

If Texas had more Senators, that would be great.

But the flip side of that is that Cali would also gain Senators, and who wants that?
Look at all the heartbreak Diane Whinestein creates for 2A fans.

SIA

Not only should we not abolish the electoral college, we should abolish the 17th amendment. The Senate was suppose to be the representative of the states and the house the people. Imagine if there were no 17th amendment. How many red states are there? The libs would be a permanent minority. The 17th amendment was one of the many tools used by the progressives to take over the country.

Without the Electoral College we become a democracy and Democracy is the same as Mob rule! The Tyranny of the many onto the few!

jason812 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:29 pm Not only should we not abolish the electoral college, we should abolish the 17th amendment. The Senate was suppose to be the representative of the states and the house the people. Imagine if there were no 17th amendment. How many red states are there? The libs would be a permanent minority. The 17th amendment was one of the many tools used by the progressives to take over the country.

I've been saying this for years.

If the left wants it, then it's probably bad. If the left is against it, then I probably want it.

Sadly, even some “conservatives” are okay with abolishing the EC via the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://townhall.com/columnists/rachela ... y-n2544059

What would make things more fair is to assign electoral votes by district. Each district gets represented by one vote, The state gets two votes for the majority. The winner not taking all. Of course most of us like it that Texas is a winner take all state. Gives us a lot of influence,

I received this email from my BIL. I did not check its accuracy.


In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.

The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!

And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.

In a word: NO!

Without the EC, the President would be selected by CA, NY, and FL. No one elses vote would matter. The Communists know this.

Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. I don't think it has the votes in either congress (2/3 required) or enough states to ratify. The next option would be a constitutional convention, which I have heard both sides call for. I am completely opposed to that option due to what I would call unintended consequences. I don't know if there would be enough support to modify or abolish the second amendment, but I really don't want to find out.

No.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:09 pm This seems to be a hot button of the Progressives. The underlying premise here is that the Great Compromise was a mistake, and that it is unfair to give less weight to the votes of Citizens in more populous states, which the current system does. But I hardly ever hear talk about the other part of this compromise, namely, adjusting the number of US Senators. After all, if it is unfair to give my vote less weight simply because I happen to live in a state like Texas with a large population, then surely it is also unfair to have less proportional representation in the Senate for large states as well.

If we keep the number of Senators at 100, that would mean that we give states one Senator for each 1% of the total population they hold. Using 2019 population data from http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ yields some interesting results, such as:

Only 39 states populations round to 1% or higher. So 11 US states, and the District of Columbia, would have no representation in the US Senate.

52 of the 100 Senators would come from just 9 states.

The 2 most populous states (California and Texas) would control 21 of the 100 US Senate seats.

While I welcome the elimination of Senate seats for liberal strongholds like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Hawaii, and as a Texan I would "benefit", I do not support either idea. Rather, I think that it is important to give weight to the opinions of folks in small states, in both the Senate and Presidential elections.

Texas and California control 20% of the house seats and California, Texas, New York, and Florida control 31%.

howdy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:24 am

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 7:09 pm This seems to be a hot button of the Progressives. The underlying premise here is that the Great Compromise was a mistake, and that it is unfair to give less weight to the votes of Citizens in more populous states, which the current system does. But I hardly ever hear talk about the other part of this compromise, namely, adjusting the number of US Senators. After all, if it is unfair to give my vote less weight simply because I happen to live in a state like Texas with a large population, then surely it is also unfair to have less proportional representation in the Senate for large states as well.

If we keep the number of Senators at 100, that would mean that we give states one Senator for each 1% of the total population they hold. Using 2019 population data from http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/ yields some interesting results, such as:

Only 39 states populations round to 1% or higher. So 11 US states, and the District of Columbia, would have no representation in the US Senate.

52 of the 100 Senators would come from just 9 states.

The 2 most populous states (California and Texas) would control 21 of the 100 US Senate seats.

While I welcome the elimination of Senate seats for liberal strongholds like New Hampshire, Vermont, and Hawaii, and as a Texan I would "benefit", I do not support either idea. Rather, I think that it is important to give weight to the opinions of folks in small states, in both the Senate and Presidential elections.

Texas and California control 20% of the house seats and California, Texas, New York, and Florida control 31%.

That makes sense as the House is reflective of the population, any difference should be due to timing (I believe current House seats are apportioned based on the 2010 census results?). Anyway, that's the whole point. Abolishing the electoral college means that people who live in large population centers get to decide who represents all of us. As Texans, we would have more say, but that would come at the expense of people in places like Hawaii, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, etc.

Changing Senate apportionment to also be based on population would accomplish the same result, of course, since the number of electors is equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives. This is especially true if you combined a Senate apportionment change with a change to eliminate "winner takes all" rules in the states. Combine these two changes and the electoral college is effectively nullified. And for the record, I do think that would be a bad thing.

If you want to see this in practice, just look at Illinois. Chicago dems and Cook County control the entire state. A large part of IL is conservative but has no vote/power.

When taking the population in consideration, I am sure that what is meant is the population of citizens of the USA while the number of immigrants and illegal aliens would have no bearing. Or is that just wishing for common sense?