No, they don’t
Why bother to go to Alaska as you can match their population with a few big cities in California alone?
The EC gives you electors based on the population size of the state, but it also gives you electors just for being a state and those electors count in the total, so just being a state makes you important - no matter how small a state you are.
That’s a two-fer.
M
No.
If that were true we don’t need separate state governments at all.
And yet we have them. They have sovereignty over their state laws and an appreciable amount of sovereignty from the FedGov.
Guaranteed in the Constitution.
M
CONGRESS does not elect presidents.
The EC gives the states their voice in the election of a president. Congress cannot give them that voice in the electoin of a president. It doesn’t vote for the President.
M
10 savvy
Are you really saying that an expert standing in a classroom is necessarily more expert than an expert who is on TV?
Expertness is a quality one achieves based on their experience within a given field - not based on where they share that expertise.
M
No. I said nothing of the sort.
Is English your second language?
Oh, I’m sorry.
It’s just that your smarmy statement about MY standard of proof led me to believe you might be thinking that, since he didn’t even mention “TV”
M
Now you changed what you originally said but ok, we agree.
No.
Changed nothing. This whole discussion has been about the election process and nothing else.
I am really the best expert on what I say and what I mean.
Really.
M
The states don’t NEED a vote for the President.
Well, I’m just glad you clarified.
Yes it is true.
Supremacy clause. States come begging to the federal government. States make up their own laws because the federal government lets them. When the time comes over a particular issue they smack them down. Why do you think same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states despite some backward ass states like Texas and my own state of Kansas insisting they arent. Its because the Fed says hell yes they are and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.
At the expense of individual voters. Like republicans in California or New York.
You might know best what you mean, and not to make too fine a point of it, but we can all see what you say. Even as well as you can.
Sure they do.
First of all, they were promised they would have one when they joined the union.
Secondly, they have their own interests just as a state that cannot be reflected in the individual votes of people alone. People will not be aware of their interests as a state, necessarily.
They are fully functioning GOVERNMENTS, with laws that any federal administration can affect, both positively and negatively. They have a right and an interest in who that administrator is.
M
No.
The Constitution GIVES them the right to make their own laws - not a gift at all from the FedGov.
The same Constitution gives them the power to elect presidents.
Take a civics class, quick.
M
NO.
That is the fault of California.
If they want to apportion their Electors based on the popular vote they certainly can. They choose instead to give them all to the party that won the popular vote.
M
You are free to misinterpret what I say and I am free to correct you.
Now, wanna waste more time telling me what I mean and say?
M
Which means that republicans voting for Trump in CA and NY had their votes nullified.
It is typical all across the country that electors go to the winning party in the state’s popular vote, though they are not required to, by law. Maine and Nebraska do not, for instance. And electors can also be “faithless” which means they vote as they want to and now how the state asks them to, but that is extremely rare.
If the California government wants to tell their electors to vote in proportion to the popular vote they can do so.
They won’t, however, because they will want all 55 electors to go to the Democrats.
M
