Re: Why the electoral college is manifestly and obviously wrong and unjust

On 8/12/2026 5:34 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 14:04:47 -0400, Ted <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 18:57:41 -0400, Attila <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 14:47:34 -0400, Ted
>>> <[email protected]> in alt.atheism with message-id
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 07:12:10 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/9/2026 7:07 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>> Skeeter <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are 15 low population red shithole states with a combined
>>>>>>> population of a little over 39 million, roughly matching California's
>>>>>>> 39 million. They are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas,
>>>>>>> Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
>>>>>>> South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These states have 48
>>>>>>> representatives to the House, and 30 senators, giving them 78 total
>>>>>>> electoral votes. California has 54 electoral votes, for its 52
>>>>>>> representatives and two senators.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why should the voters in these 15 red shithole states have more say
>>>>>>> – not just more say, but almost 50% more – in electing the
>>>>>>> president than the equal number of voters in California? In what
>>>>>>> possible universe is that a just outcome? It is not a just outcome in
>>>>>>> ANY universe at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In fact, if we elected the president on a popular vote, those 15 red
>>>>>>> shithole states would still provide more votes for the
>>>>>>> Republiscum/QAnon candidate than California does for the Democratic
>>>>>>> (not "Democrat") candidate. Harris won California with about 58.5% of
>>>>>>> the vote. Trump won the majority of those 15 red shithole states with
>>>>>>> more than 60%; more than 70% in Wyoming and West Virginia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Actually I agree with Trump,
>>>>>> the EC is a vestige of slavery
>>>>>> and needs to be abolished.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it's a vestige of slavery. Paul Finkelman showed that conclusively.
>>>>> "The Proslavery Origins of the Electoral College"
>>>>> https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2804&context=clr
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> It insures the country is not run by the population centers.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for explaining. Makes good sense.
> 
> Not really.  The small and especially ag states are the ones who
> dictate who the President is.
> 
> I forget who originally posted this but iirc it was Mitchell.
> 
> ---copy
> There are 15 low population red shithole states with a combined
> population of a little over 39 million, roughly matching California's
> 39 million.
> ---/copy
> 
> They are
> 
> Alabama, 5.2m
>   Alaska,  740k
> Arkansas, 3.1m
>   Idaho, 2m
>   Kansas, 3m
> Kentucky, 4.6m
> Louisiana, 4.6m
> Mississippi, 3m
> Montana, 1.1m
> Nebraska, 2m
> North Dakota, 800k
> South Dakota, 940k
> Utah, 3.6m
> West Virginia, 1.8m
> and Wyoming. 590k
> 
> Total:  35M
> 
> ---copy
> These states have 48 representatives to the House, and 30 senators,
> giving them 78 total electoral votes. California has 54 electoral
> votes, for its 52 representatives and two senators.
> ---/copy
> 
> Conclusion:  Low population states have far more presidential election
> power than they should have.  In effect, each voter in the above
> states has 1.5 times as many votes for President per capita as higher
> population states.

Correct. And it is entirely unwarranted.