Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
The Libs will do anything and everything they can to ensure the elections are rigged in their favor.
The Electoral College is broken. Congress broke it when it fixed the size of the House in 1910 (or thereabouts) .

Now, theoretically, Montana's population could dwindle to a thousand people and it would still have three electoral votes, while Florida's population could swell to 30 million and only have an apportioned share of the House seats once the low population states are given their guarantee.

But it's already creating a situation the Electoral College was NEVER intended to create. It is nothing but a lie that the Electoral College was supposed to protect smaller states. The Founding Fathers do not appear to have imagined a House of fixed size or the inequity that would generate.

I'm not going to do the math again, because I'm tired of going through this. But the last time I recall doing this, each Electoral Vote in Wyoming represented about 200,000 people, while each EC vote in Florida represented about 775,000 people. That's not right, nor is it as the constitution intended. The constitution intended for Wyoming to have a minimum of one house seat but one for each of about 30,000 people, and for Florida (I am aware that neither of these states was a state during the work of the Founding Fathers) was supposed to have one House seat for every 30,000 people. The only edge for the smaller state was that it would have two Senators regardless of population, and thus three EC votes at a minimum.

Of course we can't have a House with 10,000 seats, it's too big. But we can use the average of the three smallest states as a baseline, and them allocate seats proportionally to the other states using that baseline. For example, if the average population of the three smallest states is 598,000. So using that as a baseline, Florida would have 33 electors rather than the current 27 and California would have 65 electors rather than the current 55.

Of course, the most precise way, and the fairest to all states, as well as most cost effective way to apportion the House would be to weight the seats. So if Wyoming has 400,000 people, then their House seat would have a value of "1". If Montana has 600,000 people then its House seat would have a value of "1.5". A state with 800,000 people would get two seats. And so on...