[JOHN W K]

What I’m pointing out is Wyoming citizens paid $1,574,892,667 per electoral college vote. And since California gets 17 times Wyoming`s electoral college vote, by the intentions for which the rule of apportionment was adopted it is required to pay a total of 17 times what Wyoming paid in federal taxes which turns out to be a little less than $5 TRILLION which California has not paid, but rather, has only paid $313,998,874,000.

JWK

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

[centurion316]

What I’m pointing out is Wyoming citizens paid $1,574,892,667 per electoral college vote

I understand what you are pointing out, but you are quite wrong to claim that per capita taxation was the intention of apportionment. It's a wacko notion, but there are many such wacko arguments put forward on this forum, it's part of the fun of it.

To take your argument one step further, taxes paid could be converted into shares with more shares going to those who paid the most taxes and zero shares to those who pay no taxes. Each voter would then get the number of votes corresponding to his or her number of shares. It would do away with the whole notion of "one man, one vote", but what the hey!

[JOHN W K]

BTW, let me correct my above error about the $5 TRILLION figure.

WY paid per capita $9036.74

CA paid per capita $8590.18

CA paid $ 446.56 less per capita than WY

Dropping the change and multiplying the $ 446.00 to CA’s population size gives us a $22,902,733,890 short fall per capita

CA should have paid $ 336,901,607,890, but only paid $313,998,874,000

JWK