Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California`s illegitimate 55 electoral college votes!
9/23/2012 | johnwk

Posted on 09/23/2012 1:57:55 PM PDT by JOHN W K

Just for the record and to get down to some upsetting facts regarding California‘s 55 electoral college votes, the total share of federal taxes paid by the people of 18 states [New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Wyoming] works out to be a higher per capita amount then paid by the people of California. And yet, the state of California has an overwhelming 55 electoral college votes compared to any of these states!

For example, and according to 2007 figures the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. And Wyoming is allotted 3 electoral college votes. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita, which is a far less per capita than that paid by the people of Wyoming. But California gets 55 electoral college votes, about 17 times more electoral votes than Wyoming. And why is this something for the people of Wyoming and 18 other States to be upset over? It violates that part of the Great Compromise adopted when our Constitution was ratified which guarantees that representation and direct taxation is to be apportioned by each State’s population size. The two formulas considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution may be expressed as follows:

State`s Pop.
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.

State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
U.S. Pop

In regard to the first formula, both California and Wyoming are getting their full representation which is 55 and 3 electoral college votes respectively. But, with regard to taxes paid, the people of Wyoming in 2007 contributed a higher per capita share of federal taxes than California. And the fair share formula for direct taxation mandated by our Constitution turns out to be an equal per capita tax. In 2007 if the people of California each had to pay one dollar to meet its apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Wyoming would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Wyoming. And, although California’s total share of the tax would be far greater then that of Wyoming because of California’s larger population, California was compensated by its larger electoral college vote in 2007 which is also part of the rule of apportionment. But as things are now, and in choosing our next president, California gets to exercise 55 votes, but has not contributed a share into the federal treasury proportionately equal to its massive voting strength as our Constitution requires. This is a direct assault upon the very purposes for which the rule of apportionment was adopted. But don’t take my word for it, let our founding fathers speak for themselves regarding the very intentions for the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation“__ 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot`s, 243, “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public." 3 Elliot‘s, 255

And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that representation is proportionately equal to each State’s contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union [under the Articles of Confederation], she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3 Elliot‘s 41

Also see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied and each State’s Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand for their State’s Governor and Legislature to deal with. And then see Section 7 of direct tax of 1813 allowing states to raise and pay their respective quotas in their own chosen way and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.

JWK

Our tyrant in the White House forces the productive to pay income taxes so he can spread their wealth and buy votes, but he does not force his beloved 45 % who pay no income taxes to work for the taxes they get.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: apportionment; ca2012; california; college; electoral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last
To: donmeaker

doesn’t matter. It is a state and has population hence it has a representative. Wyoming is a small population too... in fact it is THE smallest at the last census. Doesn’t change the constitution


51 posted on 09/24/2012 9:02:32 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

And here I thought I was exchanging my labor for dollars. Hard to believe that is income, or gain. I guess I’ll avoid the indirect income tax by quitting my job.


52 posted on 09/25/2012 4:34:02 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Per capita? We have a lot of poor people in California so no wonder you are monomaniac on that one figure.

California regularly only gets back 0.75$ per dollar sent to DC. States like Virginia get back over 2$ per dollar paid in federal taxes.

Should Virginia have less electoral votes because of that fact?

How about you read the Constitution?


53 posted on 09/25/2012 4:58:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
FACT

Our Constitution’s apportionment formula for representation in Congress is:

State`s Pop.
___________ X House size (435) = State`s number of representatives.
Pop. of U.S.

FACT

Our Constitution’s apportionment formula for any general tax laid among the States is

State`s pop.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S FAIR SHARE
U.S. Pop

FACT

If Congress levies the apportioned tax directly upon the people it turns out to be an equal per capita tax.

FACT

According to 2007 figures, the people of Wyoming contributed $4,724,678,000 in federal taxes which works out to be $9,036.74 per capita. By contrast, the people of California contributed $313,998,874,000 in federal taxes this same year, and this figure works out to be a mere $8,590.18 per capita which is $446.56 less per capita than Wyoming which is almost $23 BILLION less then California is required to pay under the rule of apportionment.

FACT

The people of CA paid less per capita than a total of 18 States: New York, Texas, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, Colorado, Arkansas , Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Wyoming.

FACT

Although California got its one man one vote under the rule of apportionment, it was delinquent in paying its one vote one dollar under the rule of apportionment and paid less per capita than the above mentioned 18 States.

BIG FACT

The pinko politicians out in California have not only bankrupted their own state’s treasury and robbed their citizens blind, they are not paying their state’s FAIR SHARE into the federal treasury relative to their massive pinko electoral college vote and will use it to elect a pinko president who likewise has been robbing our federal treasury!.

Our country is being taken over by pinko progressive politicians without a shot being fired.

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation." ____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

54 posted on 09/26/2012 9:32:34 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Your ignorant cut and paste is cute. Can you answer the actual questions I raised or does that defeat your short sighted propaganda purposes?


55 posted on 09/26/2012 10:00:42 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Is that how you respond to facts when posted? In regard to your questions, they have no relevance to our Constitution’s rule of apportionment other than your perception of what you think should be.

JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the incomes [wealth] which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

56 posted on 09/26/2012 7:11:24 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

So southern states with low per capita income and thus lower per capita federal taxes should also have less electoral votes?

Or does your deranged delusion of how things should be only apply to California?


57 posted on 09/26/2012 7:29:40 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Your adolescent insults are uncalled for.

The rule of apportioning both representatives and taxes applies to all states.

What I’m so alarmed over is the progressive politician’s Marxist thinking and how the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation, which sadly goes unnoticed by the Republican Party Leadership, would assist greatly in obstructing the progressive politician’s agenda if enforced.

Let us recall what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 79:

A POWER OVER A MAN's SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL

Is this maxim not at the very core of Obama’s Marxist political philosophy?

And just what is Obama’s political philosophy?

f we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal dictatorship and be in charge of redistributing the incomes [wealth] which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

But the rule of apportionment, which prevents such evil (what is now called redistribution of wealth), was not only meant to apply to each State’s tax contribution to the federal government, but also intended to apply to contributions from the federal government to the States! And this fact is established by reviewing an Act of Congress in June of 1836 in which all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was distributed among the states, the total being $28,000,000, being distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans, to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

Why does the Republican Party Leadership ignore the rule of apportionment, the enforcement of which is essential in obstructing Obama’s Marxist political philosophy?

JWK

"To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes [Obama’s Solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon swindling deals] is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Assc. v. Topeka,(1875).

58 posted on 09/27/2012 5:06:19 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Still no answer. Should states with poorer populations have less electoral power, or just California?


59 posted on 09/27/2012 8:18:14 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: knarf
No. It is based on the number of Representatives and Senators.

Every state has two Senators. Representatives are apportioned according to population, but each state gets at least two. Each state gets a number or Electors equal to the their Representatives and Senators (minimum 4, obviously).

60 posted on 09/27/2012 8:27:38 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The apportioned tax is an equal per capita tax. It taxes rich and poor alike. It does not take wealth into consideration and is not a class warfare tax. And, it was intended to only be used if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption, preferable articles of luxury, were found insufficient to meet Congress’ expenditures.

JWK

61 posted on 09/27/2012 12:32:34 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Have you read ‘Atlas Shrugged’?


62 posted on 09/27/2012 8:49:23 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I don’t think that the rule of apportionment is ignored. Rather, they enact indirect taxes where the rule does not apply.


63 posted on 09/27/2012 8:51:55 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

No, but I’ve seen part one of the movie, LOL!


64 posted on 09/27/2012 9:01:33 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: andyk

The book is always better! “The Fountainhead” is a pretty good movie though.


65 posted on 09/27/2012 9:30:31 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

And what would our founders call a tax on earned wages?


66 posted on 09/28/2012 5:06:11 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

An indirect tax. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion, an insurrection begun in opposition to an indirect tax that was suppressed by the founders.


67 posted on 09/28/2012 11:21:03 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Look, we all know Obama supporters want their one man one vote part of the Constitution, but run from their one vote one dollar constitutionally mandated obligation. We also know most of Obama supporters want their vote for nothing more than to get free stuff!

HERE IS A TYPICAL OBAMA SUPPORTER yapping about her free Obama phone

The rule of apportionment was intended to prevent this very evil! We need to reclaim Representation with proportional financial obligation and put an end to progressives‘ theft by vote!

JWK

The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVES`S nightmare and not the American Dream

68 posted on 09/29/2012 6:36:43 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Point is there are direct taxes, and indirect taxes. Indirect federal taxes (such as taxes on wages, tariff, excise taxes on liquor) have never been required to be apportioned by population in the present constitution.

Taxes on property were required to be apportioned by population before the 16th Amendment, and were not required to be apportioned by population after the 16th amendment. Most US federal taxes are not direct taxes.


69 posted on 09/29/2012 10:49:11 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
The 16th amendment was in response to Pollock . Income from wages was, an indirect tax. Income from property was, per Pollock, a direct tax. The 16th Amendment permitted taxes on Income from what ever source, to be treated as an indirect tax, and thus, not subject to apportionment.
70 posted on 09/29/2012 10:55:13 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Apportionment only applies to some taxes, the ones that are direct. Indirect taxes are not subject to apportionment. Examples of indirect taxes include excise taxes on liquor, income taxes on wages, tariff on imports, Capital gains tax, fee of 200 dollars on manufacture of a firearm, and, post 16th Amendment, income tax on income from property.

That the indirect taxes are legal per the apportionment clause doesn’t make them right. It just means you need a different argument.


71 posted on 09/29/2012 11:05:40 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I’m not sure what your point is in brining up the 16th Amendment, but it certainly did not change the rule requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

Aside from that I get the feeling you have a problem with the very intentions for which the rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted. Am I correct in thinking this?

JWK

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

72 posted on 09/29/2012 1:29:26 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

The point is that there are direct taxes and indirect taxes. Direct taxes are apportioned as you say. Indirect taxes do not need to be apportioned.

You seem to be confused in that you seem to want to apply the rule on direct taxes to indirect taxes. The 16th Amendment was passed so taxes on income from property would be treated as an indirect tax. Income from wages, excise taxes, tariff, and various fines and fees are indirect taxes.

Taxes on property as property, or on a per head basis would be direct taxes, and would still be subject to apportionment.


73 posted on 09/29/2012 5:16:35 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
You never answered the question. I get the feeling you have a problem with the very intentions for which the rule of apportioning any general tax among the States was adopted. Am I correct in thinking this?

JWK

74 posted on 09/29/2012 7:05:43 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I don’t have any problem with apportionment of direct taxes. I do have a problem with a presumption that the required apportionment of direct taxes is some kind of general provision for all other taxes.


75 posted on 09/29/2012 9:44:47 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
There is no presumption the rule of apportionment applies to all taxes. But it was intended to apply to any general tax laid among the States! Let us look at the document intentions of the founders:

In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both representatives and direct taxes “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

And Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment says:

“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.”4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax”3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

And if there is any question about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that those states contributing the lion’s share to fund the federal government are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

The very intention for the rule of apportionment as applied to taxation was that if Congress could not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties, and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically selected article of consumption, preferable articles of luxury as intended by our founders, and a general internal tax among the states was found necessary to meet Congress exigencies, the rule of apportionment would apply so each state’s share of a total sum being raised would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress. This is also pointed out in several of the State Ratification documents. For example see the Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire; June 21, 1788

Fourthly That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Publick Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition-

So, as it turns out, the very intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted was to insure that the people of each state, if a general tax was levied among the states, would be obligated to pay a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress.

Do you agree this is the documented intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted with regard to taxation?

JWK

76 posted on 09/30/2012 5:04:47 AM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson