NewJerseyRich wrote:Can't agree with you on the Electoral College. As you said "Square miles of land isn't democracy." Cali gets 55 electoral votes so a candidate has to make those up somewhere else basically having to win 3-4 or 10 states to over come this deficit. North Dakota votes are not more valuable to Cali as they're based on population. They have a paltry 3 electoral votes. If land mass were the barometer Alaska as well wouldn't have 3 electoral votes.
I noted land mass because of your means-nothing statistic of "but Trump won XYZ more States." Winning more states (raw numbers or percentage) doesn't mean much in a democracy. What should matter is the number of votes a candidate got. The Electoral College intentionally skews the value of a vote so that a vote cast in, say, Wyoming has 3x the value of a vote cast in, say, California. In 2008 across all the states an electoral vote represented approximately 565,166 people, but Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes (the minimum possible for a state to have) to represent a population of 532,668. That means a Wymoning electoral vote, which counts just as much as a California electoral vote, represents 1/3 as many voters. Hence "the Electoral College is bullshit."
Your recollection of the 3/5th rule is a little off. IF they counted slaves as a full person the states power would have shifted base on the very thing you're railing for...population. The South at that time would have had greater representation and likely over taken the Govt. It was a compromise.
Are you really defending "slaves count as 3/5 of a person"?
