Skip to comments.California`s illegitimate 55 electoral college votes!
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:
___________ X House (435) = State`s votes in House
Pop. of U.S.
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE
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
“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.
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.
The pinko politicians out in California have not only bankrupted their own state’s treasury, they are not paying their state’s FAIR APPORTIONED SHARE into the federal treasury relative to their massive pinko electoral college vote.
“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.
Of course exchanges can be conducted to mutual advantage. People are better at some things than others. Taxing the transaction “income” makes it not an indirect tax.
Feel free to barter. In that case there is no money income, and no income tax. Historically Coins never had the full weight of metal in them. The difference between the face value and precious metal weight was a tax, but not a direct one.
California has not. Colorado has, but only when some number of other states also agree, so in practice, Colorado also has not.
I recall Nebraska passed a proportional representation law. That has the effect of encouraging campaigners to go elsewhere, rather than spend statewide electioneering money to get a 2 ECV advantage.
Taxes on property were a direct tax. Taxes on income were not a direct tax.
The interesting case was Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, which held that tax on income derived from property was ‘like’ a tax on property and thus direct, while taxes on wages were not direct.
The 16th Amendment changed that, for income derived from property. Tax on income derived from labor was unchanged!
I know a fellow (slightly) who owns a ‘Section’ and derives much of his income from its rent. Good work if you can get it.
Hey John, the electoral college are not based on taxes.
Except that no state can have less than 1 representative. Alaska is a pretty small state in population.
No. Taxes on wage income were considered indirect, even before the 16th Amendment, as were taxes from Excise (liquor taxes are an example) or tariff.
Property income was treated as a direct tax, per Pollock v.Farmers Loan and Trust Company. After that the source of the income had to be considered, with things ‘like’ income from property being direct and things ‘like’ income from wages being indirect.
Until the 16th Amendment, permitted tax on income from what ever sources. The 16th amendment had no effect on wage income, oddly enough.
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
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.
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?
Our Constitution’s apportionment formula for representation in Congress is:
___________ X House size (435) = State`s number of representatives.
Pop. of U.S.
Our Constitution’s apportionment formula for any general tax laid among the States is
_________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S FAIR SHARE
If Congress levies the apportioned tax directly upon the people it turns out to be an equal per capita tax.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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).
Your ignorant cut and paste is cute. Can you answer the actual questions I raised or does that defeat your short sighted propaganda purposes?
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.
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?
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?
"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).
Still no answer. Should states with poorer populations have less electoral power, or just California?
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).
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.