Electoral college and simple math

[Richard Moody]

.
    > You seem to be really selective about which part of the system you
> decry.
>
> Gina

If Congress is held to the standard of the Electorial collage, then states
like Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota would have NO representatives in
the House.
In the Constitution each state is guarateed at least one representative in
the House no matter what the population even if there is disparity.  In the
Senate of course there is no disparity because by design only two from each
state are elected.  But Greg makes a very cogent point----how come the 3
electors of Wyoming represent more people than 3 of California's 54
electors?    If disparity in the Electoral College or in Congress is
decried,  the Consititution itself  must be changed.
    The first president from the Republican party said we are a nation "of
the people, by the people and for the people" and this at the end of a
bloody civil war to over "states rights"  Now it seems ironic that the
current Republican candidate having lost the vote of the people, can only
hope to attain office by a vote of the states.   So do we want a president
of the people or a president of states? ---ric



----- Original Message -----


From: Eugenia Carter <ginacarter@carolina.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: Electoral college and simple math


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Anderson" <greg@planetbeagle.com>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 3:14 PM
> Subject: Electoral college and simple math
>
> >
> > And speaking of simple math, we can use it to demonstrate who benefits
> most from the electoral college.  I live in California, the most populous
> state in the nation.  The least populous state is Wyoming (whose state
> population is roughly one-half the population of my city, San Jose).
Here's
> how our two electoral counts stack up:
> >
> > State           Population      Electoral votes         Persons/elector
> > CA              33,145,121      54                      613,799
> > Wyoming 479,602         3                       159,867
> >
>
> Greg,
>
> You seem to be really selective about which part of the system you
> decry. Taking this thought a bit more thoroughly, and taking your figures
as
> fact, does it bother you that in CA each member of the House of
> Representatives represents 637,406 constituents, while in Wyoming the one
> and only member of the House of Representatives represents 479,602
> constituents?
>
> Or in the Senate that each Senator from CA must represent 33,145,121
> constituents while the Wyoming Senators have only 479,602 constituents
> between the two of them?
>
> Looked at another way each Wyoming Member of the House has 1.3 times more
> power than does a Member from CA. And a member of the Senate from Wyoming
> has 69.1 times more power than does a Senator from CA. Talk about
> disparity!!
>
> If you are really concerned about this Electoral College disparity
shouldn't
> you be just as concerned about this imbalance/disparity in the Houses of
> Congress?
>
> Gina