Isn’t the electoral college based on population ?
And West Virginia only pays in $3599.24 per capita and has 5 Electoral Votes and Mississippi only pays in $3723.71 per capita and has 6 Electoral Votes.
I had no idea that the Constitution dictated that electoral votes be apportioned among the states on the basis of per capita federal taxes. Who knew?
I thought California and the other solidly Leftist states had pledged to stop assigning electoral votes on an all or nothing basis.
My household paid over $50,000 in taxes last year, that works out to be over $16,000 per capita. I don’t have any Electoral Votes.
Assuming there are 30 million illegals in America, that’s enough to create some 50 congressional districts and they don’t even need to vote to do it. If they do vote, you can pretty much count on those districts being almost exclusively democrat. As it is we don’t know how many districts exist almost wholly due to the presence of illegals.
The costs of administering a single district must run into the millions. How much pork can a district seek? How many earmarks? What will all those new democrat congressmen vote for?
If you think Obamacare is bad, you haven’t seen squat. Wait till the day all those democrats start dictating how many cars a family can have, what job you can have, or where you can live. Wait till they dictate that all paychecks come from government and you get a small cut of what is left over.
Illegals are nothing but government growth hormone and amnesty today is nothing short of treason.
Why then shouldn't California have 66.5 times more weight in elections than Wyoming, rather than the 18.3 times more it presently has?
I, for one, am tired of pulling more than my fair share of the weight so that a bunch of freeloading cowboys can have more representation in federal elections than I do.
I always thought electoral college votes were related to the number of house members plus two (senators).
ECV have nothing to do with taxes paid.
I had though many states were going to proportional vote percentage to votes cast to decide ECVs.
California has been discussing doing this, but who knows the progress.
I am not sure where there data come from but this is about what I seen other places.
State Federal Spending per Dollar of Federal Taxes
New Mexico $2.03
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
South Dakota $1.53
South Carolina $1.35
North Carolina $1.08
Rhode Island $1.00
New York $0.79
New Hampshire $0.71
New Jersey $0.61
Should the states that receive less back than they get back back get more votes too.
Apples? Meet oranges.
This is going to blow up in your face when you see how low the per capita is in the Southern states.
who cares.. won’t the winner of the popular vote them anyways?
If Zero wins the pop vote CA won’t matter.
If Mitt wins the pop vote CA will only help until Zero runs to the courts to fight over it.
apparently you don’t like our Constitution which specifies how the electoral college works. ANy effort to move to popular vote or weaken the EC will no doubt end in a democracy rather than a republic. You can rant all you want but the Constitution is clear. Get over it
Add to everything else the fact that Congressional seats are assigned by *total* population...US citizens,Green Card holders *and* wetbacks.And given that at least a third of the states total population are wetbacks....
Go back to grammer school, you didn’t pay attention!
Hey John, the electoral college are not based on taxes.
Per capita? We have a lot of poor people in California so no wonder you are monomaniac on that one figure.
California regularly only gets back 0.75$ 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?