#CalExit? Are you kidding me?

[Deleted]

Actually the rural agricultural area tend to vote Republicans.

http://graphics.latimes.com/la-na-po...ts-california/

Not sure what you meant by CA economy is artificial. In my opinion it is pretty balanced. In Texas, and many other states, the energy sector is king. CA economy on the other hand is balanced. No one sector overshadow everything else.

California is propped up dramatically by it's ability to leech talent into things like Silicon Valley and it's many tax cuts for big businesses. Also, those Rural Republicans never matter because of the Electoral College, and are being ousted by Chinese owned farms who vote Democrat, who Ironically, are the cause of the water shortage.

[Ragedaug]

If California became a country it would have almost twice the population of Australia.

California has 55 EC votes out of 538 total.
California has a population of 38.8 million out of 318.9 million total.

So that's 1.4 EC votes per million inhabitants. The US total is 1.7 EC votes per million inhabitants. So... it's significantly underweight?

The Electoral College (EC) is a representation of both Houses of Congress. In the two houses of Congress you have one house that represents the people (The House of Representatives), and the other represents the States (The Senate). To understand the purpose of the EC, you first need to understand the purpose of having a Senate.

So for the two houses of Congress, the HoR design is to give authority based on population. States with more people will be more heavily impacted impacted by any laws made, so those states are given more say (or power). In order to give small states some semblance of recognition and so that the entire country won't be ruled by the whimsy of CA, TX, NY, and FL, we also have a Senate, where every state regardless of size has equal authority.

Without the HoR, the bigger states would be taken advantage of, and without the Senate, the smaller states would be taken advantage of. That's why there are 2 houses to balance each other out.

In the EC, each state automatically gets 2 Electorates (Representing the state). Following that the remaining electorates are based on population, with 1 being the minimum number. So each state will have a minimum of 3 Electoral Votes.

So the presidential election is a combination of popular votes & total states. To win, you need a good balance of both. With the popular decision being extremely close, Trump's ability to win 50% more states is what pushed him over.


to edit your math and compare representation we need to remove the 2 state rep electoral votes from CA and 102 from the total states & DC. That leaves us with the following:
California has 53 representative EC votes out of 436 total representative votes: 12.2%
California has a population of 38.8 million out of 318.9 million total: 12.2%

= California is represented properly.


In closing, the EC is fine, it's the two major party candidates who are rubbish and the folks who voted for either are, at best, just voting for the lesser of two evils, or at worse, blatant hypocrites, if they are defending their candidate while bemoaning the other.

[Deleted]

Well seeing as Clinton won the popular vote, it seems the uninformed minority is oppressing the informed majority.

As it should be, by your logic, London should dictate every Law in the house of commons over every other city in Parliament by a staggering degree.

[Deleted]

If you don't like the electoral college I challenge you to find a better system that can more properly represent middle america as well as people living in large urban areas. (hint) it isn't the popular vote.

My one fix I would have is for the electoral college is not to have take all states. Make the electoral proportional to the percent of the vote that a candidate wins.

A Parliament would work, but that would not have a presidency and would force Democrats and Republicans to work together more, so I guess for Americans, it'd be worse.

[cparle87]

Why don't we simply have the winner be the one who gets the most votes? Let's take this imaginary state, Gekiland. Has 10 million people. 5,000,0001 people vote for Trump. Under the electoral college system he gets all the points that state is worth, and the 4,999,999 people who voted for Hilary may as well have not even voted, because they literally do not matter.

[Polyxo]

If I were California, I really wouldn't care what Ohio or West Virginia want either. Those states repeatedly vote for racism, black lung and poverty.

[Deleted]

Why don't we simply have the winner be the one who gets the most votes? Let's take this imaginary state, Gekiland. Has 10 million people. 5,000,0001 people vote for Trump. Under the electoral college system he gets all the points that state is worth, and the 4,999,999 people who voted for Hilary may as well have not even voted, because they literally do not matter.

Because then Smaller states are worthless and Policy can completely ignore them. Under the electoral system Alaska has 3 votes. That's more representation that what? 0.5% of the population of California?

Let's say a President, say, Steve, Has a Policy that will dramatically cut down on native Oil and Lumber industry by 99% to "Save the enviroment" and increase federal road taxes or whatever.

California wouldn't give a shit.

Alaska would be fucking destroyed economically and thousands could lose their jobs or even die.

[Blur4stuff]

what about voters in small states? the EC is fair

and we end up with 8 years of bush and at least 4 years of trump because of it

[Vargur]

Just form another nation. Leave the bible belt and mid-west for racist Trumpists and NY surroundings, West Coast for democrats and libertarians.
Regression vs progression, let's see who will thrive.

[Deleted]

and we end up with 8 years of bush and at least 4 years of trump because of it

Yes, how dare people not vote for Democrats, No matter how horrible and Globalist they are.

[Vlaid]

I'm not a republican, but you're dead wrong when you say that the Republican led congress didn't do their job by not appointing a new supreme court justice. They did by using the powers legally vested in them by the constitution and acted in what they believed to be the interests of their constituents. On top of that, the democrats did the same thing in 2007 when they refused to vote on any of Bush's nominees and I don't fault them for that either because they were also acting in the best interests of their constituents.

The nominee proposed (Merrick Garland) had bipartisan support for the appointment long before he was even up for the appointment, the only reason he wasn't voted in is because he would have been an Obama appointment as well as so that they could get someone even more extremely conservative. It had nothing to do with representing their constituents and I would feel the exact same way if the Democrats were blocking supreme court appointments. It is absolutely criminal to allow a supreme court to go unfilled because you refuse to allow the sitting president to do his job or to do the job the people elected you put you there to do.

[callipygoustp]

California is propped up dramatically by it's ability to leech talent into things like Silicon Valley and it's many tax cuts for big businesses. Also, those Rural Republicans never matter because of the Electoral College, and are being ousted by Chinese owned farms who vote Democrat, who Ironically, are the cause of the water shortage.

LOL dude you have some quality posts: leeching talent into....

Hahahahaha

[Deleted]

LOL dude you have some quality posts: leeching talent into....

Hahahahaha

Let's do a little test. Let's say you are an extremely bright and talented Scientist, a modern day Prometheus.

Where do you go in America?

[Blur4stuff]

Yes, how dare people not vote for Democrats, No matter how horrible and Globalist they are.

we don't have to speculate as to how bad a Bush presidency was. we have proof.

If Trump and republicans actually do what they promised then it's going to be worse. We have proof about what happens with those kinds of policies. Like Kansas.

Those voters have just fucked us over because they're so eager to kick out the brown people.

[Ragedaug]

Why don't we simply have the winner be the one who gets the most votes? Let's take this imaginary state, Gekiland. Has 10 million people. 5,000,0001 people vote for Trump. Under the electoral college system he gets all the points that state is worth, and the 4,999,999 people who voted for Hilary may as well have not even voted, because they literally do not matter.

I made a very detailed post above on the same page you asked the question. It explains why.

[callipygoustp]

Let's do a little test. Let's say you are an extremely bright and talented Scientist, a modern day Prometheus.

Where do you go in America?

Certainly you would want to go where the smartest Americans are.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, the answer is clear cut.

[Deleted]

Not everyone thinks "Globalist" is an insult. I suggest you take the high road, and not be a hypocrite if you think liberals calling people deplorables is unfair.

You should consider it a dirty word, Globalism causes all the problems we see today.

- - - Updated - - -

we don't have to speculate as to how bad a Bush presidency was. we have proof.

If Trump and republicans actually do what they promised then it's going to be worse. We have proof about what happens with those kinds of policies. Like Kansas.

Those voters have just fucked us over because they're so eager to kick out the brown people.

Yeah, Obama's 8 years were fantastic.

Oh wait. Gay Marriage and A shitty Obamacare.

That's it.

[Wyrt]

Yes, how dare people not vote for Democrats, No matter how horrible and Globalist they are.

Globalism isn't a bad thing. California is going to be suffering the worst from Trump's proposed oppressive trade policies.

Yeah, Obama's 8 years were fantastic.

Oh wait. Gay Marriage and A shitty Obamacare.

That's it.

America's healthcare was shitty before Obamacare too. It'll be shitty after Trump repeals Obamacare. We're not going to see any real healthcare reform under Trump.

[Deleted]

Certainly you would want to go where the smartest Americans are.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case, the answer isn't clear cut.

So basically "You'll centralize"

So California absorbs talent and basically stops any sort of technology firm outside of it for having any major impact. Funnily enough that's changing, just like it is with London and the UK.

But it's always a bad thing, because Silicon Valley hasn't been majorly productive in like 15 years.

[Deleted]

Globalism isn't a bad thing. California is going to be suffering the worst from Trump's proposed oppressive trade policies.

Globalism is 100% a bad thing.