if votes are given to states not people then why are the amount of votes a state gets based on its population?

They're only based on population after a certain cutoff; That is, every state gets three votes automatically before the rest are given according to population.

This is why Big states are penalized to a certain point in the Electoral college. As mentioned in the CGP grey video, California is ten votes short of what it would get if votes were allocated strictly based on population.

This means that if a state has less than the 1.5 million or so people in it that three votes gives after the cutoff, that states voting power can be doubled or tripled.

For example; Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, has three times the voting power it would have if votes were given votes strictly based on population. Meanwhile, California, the Biggest state in terms of population, gets ten less votes than it would otherwise get.

You're missing a big point. In almost all cases the government is using total population to distribute the number of representatives. This "total population" method includes people who cannot (by state, federal, or constitutional law) vote, including convicted felons, people under the age of 18, and illegal immigrants. In almost all cases this skews reapportionment, giving more votes and greater power to urban areas which tend to have more people under the age of 18, more illegal citizens, and more convicted felons. Urban votes are actually getting diluted under the current system and in reality total population should be ruled completely illegal by the supreme court.

@Jai due the fact that census occurs every 10 years, probably the most effective technique is to use voter-population projections to determine the number of seats a state gets, and have it adjust across time(election cycle to election cycle), as then you are punishing young voters.

However, the senate should definitely become population-based and make filibustering as difficult as it was in the past, you can make the gov't inept and unable to do anything with around 10% of the US population with 100% voting, which makes no sense, this is what's needed for 40 votes in the senate, enough to successfully filibuster.

Also, convicted felons are able to vote in some states and not others, and there is currently a on-going case on the matter, and as such it may make more sense to just let them vote, rather than have this stupid debate in regards to them continue, as "Hard-on-crime" persons go out of their way to get this rule in, and then it gets overturned as soon as they leave office.

Illegal and Legal immigrants do pose an issue in regards to giving every citizen an equal power of the vote, but trying to identify and remove them may be difficult, as such total population is just a simpler technique, and if the gov't were to actually do this, it would cost a good chunk of money, and also probably quite a few supreme-court cases.

Edit: Also, I'm complaining about the supreme court effectively getting the presidency to someone, and as such upending democracy nationally, which I view as major violation of the constitution, as for gay rights& other items like that, it can be argued that they are defensible via the first amendment, which the supreme court stated.

Edited 1/18/2016 02:10:54

@Jai due the fact that census occurs every 10 years, probably the most effective technique is to use voter-population projections to determine the number of seats a state gets, and have it adjust across time(election cycle to election cycle), as then you are punishing young voters.

Since we have census data for every 10 years plus doctor records for when people get born (we still order birth certificates for everyone)...we could easily adjust across time for people naturally entering their 18th year and then being eligible to vote.

However, the senate should definitely become population-based and make filibustering as difficult as it was in the past, you can make the gov't inept and unable to do anything with around 10% of the US population with 100% voting, which makes no sense, this is what's needed for 40 votes in the senate, enough to successfully filibuster.

You can't. The entire purpose of imposing the 2 Senators per state rule was to prevent large states from becoming too powerful at the expense of small and rural states. This push is exactly like those in the early 1900s who pushed for Senators to be chosen by the people instead of the state legislatures. We can't keep undoing the constitutional foundation of this country. We need more checks on the Federal Government by the states and the senate was the cornerstone of this.

On whether criminal should be allowed to vote, I'm actually a strict constitutionalist and believe that denying the right to vote to felons is a huge infraction. Just because you're a convicted felon does not mean you give up your constitutional rights as a citizen.

Illegal and Legal immigrants do pose an issue in regards to giving every citizen an equal power of the vote, but trying to identify and remove them may be difficult, as such total population is just a simpler technique, and if the gov't were to actually do this, it would cost a good chunk of money, and also probably quite a few supreme-court cases.

"Simpler" does not mean its democratic, fair, or constitutional. The entire civil rights movement was based on the idea of one man, one vote. Including illegals in total population and using that to give representation directly undermines that idea! So maybe we stop spending so much on social welfare and military interventionism and invest in actually running a democracy...which means we spend money to figure out who is illegal and who is legal. Also its not that hard to exclude people on student visas and green cards from the total population. Right now some of my friends on student visas are artificially lowering how much my vote counts.

Actually I just came up with an idea to resolve the immigrant issue, we could just award votes based on the census checkbox for US citizen(We may have an somewhat inaccurate count based on liars, but we could just ask the census bureau to make confirmations)

We need more checks on the Federal Government by the states and the senate was the cornerstone of this.
Eh, I'm support a stronger and more centralized gov't to reduce the cost of gov't bureaucracy, but I guess that's an argument that we can have later.

How does a more centralized government decrease the costs of bureaucracy? The US government has gotten more centralized over the last 200 years...the only thing that's led to is increasing costs to run the government.

But also...smart idea on using the checkbox for US citizen (again it may be a really rough estimate though). Although our population is getting on the scale of millions now so its offset somewhat.

Edited 1/18/2016 02:33:24

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy

Japan read the Trial by Kafka. It speaks exactly to this point. There's no such thing as a small bureaucracy. To facilitate the creation of a bureaucracy by centralization of government, inherently means inefficiency, waste, and the growth of government.

...and the Americans try to tell US about FPP??

And I thought the UK system was confusing... I figured the US system was everyone gets a vote, you vote on 2 people, the one with over 50% wins, end of...

States get 3 votes at least because each state gets 2 for their senators and then they get elector votes based on how many representatives they have. That's where the craziness onsets.