The Electors

29 Largest USA POPULATIONS of Citizens in Colonies and States of America USA

Puerto Rico 3,474,182 --------- NO SENATORS or Representatives in CONGRESS

Iowa 3,123,899 ------------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Utah 2,995,919 ------------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Mississippi 2,992,333 -------------2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Arkansas 2,978,204 ---------------2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Kansas 2,911,641 ----------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Nevada 2,890,845 ---------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
New Mexico 2,085,109 ---------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Nebraska 1,896,190 ------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
West Virginia 1,844,128 -------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Idaho 1,654,930 ----------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Hawaii 1,431,603 ---------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
New Hampshire 1,330,608 ------ 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Maine 1,329,328 ----------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Rhode Island 1,056,298 ----------2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Montana 1,032,949 ---------------2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Delaware 945,934 ---------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
South Dakota 858,469 ---------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
North Dakota 756,927 ---------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Alaska 738,432 ------------------ 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS

District of Columbia 672,228 --NO SENATORS or Representatives in CONGRESS

Vermont 626,042 ---------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS
Wyoming 625,745 ---------------- 2 SENATORS and 1 or Many Reps in CONGRESS

------ STOP your RACISTLY IGNORANT biaComments and blags.....!..... LEAVE

Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 has nothing to do with your racist rant Robert.

Under the U.S. Constitution the President and Vice President are chosen by Electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states and the District of Columbia. The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of Electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s.

The Electors

SUBJECT

"....a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives ..."

yet your crazy 'white'crackHEAD....calls FACTS and FIGURES a rant?

"....Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2 has nothing to do with your racist rant Robert. ..."
Friday, November 11th 2016 at 3:22PM
Steve Williams

*******************************************************************

USA Colonies Puerto Rico and Washington D>C. ... 4,415,000+ AfricanAmericans

.....DUE to RACISTLY IGNORANT crackERS like steveAdam have NO ELECTORS

for the 4,415,000th ....Leave this African American Family ..

Sure Robert, blame it all on the crackers.

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Starting with the election of 1804, each Presidential election has been conducted under the Twelfth Amendment.

and
William A. Wheeler
for the State of Louisiana
Only once since then has the House of Representatives chosen the President: In 1824, Andrew Jackson received 99 electoral votes, John Quincy Adams (son of John Adams) 84, William H. Crawford 41 and Henry Clay 37. All of the candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican Party (though there were significant political differences among them), and each had fallen short of the 131 votes necessary to win. Because the House could only consider the top three candidates, Clay could not become President. Crawford's poor health following a stroke made his election by the House unlikely. Andrew Jackson expected the House to vote for him, as he had won a plurality of the popular and electoral votes.[Note 3] Instead, the House elected Adams on the first ballot with thirteen states, followed by Jackson with seven and Crawford with four.[11] Clay had endorsed Adams for the Presidency; the endorsement carried additional weight because Clay was the Speaker of the House. When Adams later appointed Clay his Secretary of State, many—particularly Jackson and his supporters—accused the pair of making a "Corrupt Bargain".[12] In the less contested election for vice president, John C. Calhoun received 182 electoral votes and was elected outright.

In 1836, the Whig Party nominated different candidates in different regions in the hopes of splintering the electoral vote and denying Martin Van Buren, the Democratic candidate, a majority in the Electoral College, thereby throwing the election into the Whig-controlled House. However, this strategy failed with Van Buren winning majorities of both the popular and electoral vote. In that same election no candidate for Vice President secured a majority in the electoral college as Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Richard Mentor Johnson did not receive the electoral votes of Democratic electors from Virginia, because of his relationship with a former slave. As a result, Johnson received 147 electoral votes, one vote short of a majority; to be followed by Francis Granger with 77, John Tyler with 47 and William Smith with 23. This caused the Senate to choose whether Johnson or Granger would be the new Vice President. Johnson won with 33 votes, with Granger receiving 16.[13]

Since 1836, no major U.S. party has nominated multiple regional presidential or vice presidential candidates in an election. However, since the Civil War there have been two serious attempts by Southern-based parties to run regional candidates in hopes of denying either of the two major candidates an electoral college majority. Both attempts (in 1948 and 1968) failed, but not by much—in both cases a shift in the result of two close states would have forced the respective elections into the House.[14][15]

In modern elections, a running mate is often selected in order to appeal to a different set of voters. A Habitation Clause issue arose during the 2000 presidential election contested by George W. Bush (running-mate **** Cheney) and Al Gore (running-mate Joe Lieberman), because it was alleged that Bush and Cheney were both inhabitants of Texas and that the Texas electors therefore violated the Twelfth Amendment in casting their ballots for both. Bush's residency was unquestioned, as he was Governor of Texas at the time. Cheney and his wife had moved to Dallas five years earlier when he assumed the role of chief executive at Halliburton. Cheney grew up in Wyoming and had represented it in Congress. A few months before the election, he switched his voter registration and driver's license to Wyoming and put his home in Dallas up for sale. Three Texas voters challenged the election in a federal court in Dallas and then appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where it was dismissed.[16]

How does the Electoral College work in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania has what’s called a “winner-take-all” system. The presidential candidate who receives the majority of votes across Pennsylvania wins all 20 electoral votes.

What would Pileggi's plan do?
Pileggi’s plan – which is called the Congressional District Plan (CDP) – breaks votes down by Congressional district. A presidential candidate would receive one electoral vote for each Congressional district where that candidate won the popular vote. On top of that, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote statewide would get two extra electoral votes.

What's good about the CDP?
CDP advocates say that the winner-take-all process doesn’t give any credit to people who vote for the losing candidate. In addition, cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with lots of voters can overwhelm smaller towns across the state. This ends up discouraging people from voting. Pileggi says that changing to the CDP would more accurately reflect the real wishes of Pennsylvanians and keep elections relevant here.

Give me an example of how this would play out.
Let’s take the 2008 presidential election. Barak Obama won the popular vote statewide, so in Pennsylvania’s winner-take-all system, he received all then-21 electoral votes and John McCain got none. If the CDP had been in place, here’s what would have happened: Since Obama won 9 Congressional districts and McCain won 10, Obama would have received 11 electoral votes (9 for each district he won plus 2 more for winning the statewide vote) and McCain would have received 10.

https://www.seventy.org/publications/2011/...