A few friends were having a “talk” about the Electoral College and one mentioned it to me. Forth being Forth, I went out and compiled some numbers for you to toss around in your head.
Largest 10 States Estimated 2008 Population 165 million
Smallest 10 States Estimated 2008 Population 8.724 million
California is the largest with 36,756,666 million people. They have 55 Electoral College votes.
Their population per Electoral College vote is 664,604.
Wyoming is the smallest with 532,668 people. They have 3 Electoral College votes.
Their population per Electoral College vote 174,277.
The difference between the largest and smallest state today there are 36.224 million people.
The Electoral College has been in place as we know it since 1804.
The population in 1804 of the nation was somewhere around 6 million and there were 17 states.
Virginia had the most electors -24 votes- with a population of 807,557
Their population per Electoral College vote was 33,648.
Delaware and Ohio had the least -3 votes- with populations of 64,273 and 45,365
Their population per Electoral College vote was 21,424 and 15,121.
The difference between the largest and smallest state today is 762,192 people.
The executive summary goes like this: When the US adopted the electoral college system the largest state was only about 3/4 of a million larger than the smallest. Each electoral college vote in Virginia represented only half of the population that it did in Ohio or Delaware. Now the the votes of California only represent 1/6th of what they represent in Wyoming.
Now of course, California gets a lot more attention than Wyoming but does that seem fair either? The system seems off. I’m not proposing we go straight popular vote (though that does seem to be the conventional wisdom when it comes to changing the system) but I am saying we should have another look at it.
My argument is this: the system seems to have been designed to prevent the country from going to far too fast; it has also allowed the minority -that is frequently belligerent in this day and age- to hold hostage necessary and dare I say intelligent reform. Since the less-populated more rural states tend to be more conservative, the system is biased towards the status quo. This, at times, has been beneficial, but as the majority of the American populous moves towards the cities it is also creating a disparity in voting power which I find unacceptable. It is theoretically possible for a bill to have a large majority of the American people’s support yet fail in the Senate where rules much like the Electoral College give far more power to the smaller states than is necessarily equitable.
Am I in favor of the little guy having little or no say? Of course not. But at the moment, the little guy has WAY too much of a say. Sometimes we hear too much from a minority that isn’t 35 or 40% of the population but is more like 10% of it. As Ike once said of a small majority that felt Social Security should be done away with “their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
~Forth
6 responses so far ↓
TheBeardedMan // 6 March 2009 at 9:51 am |
hmm… base the election on how the population actually votes…. that’s just crazy talk! I think we need to continue punishing people for living in densely populated areas.
Dani // 6 March 2009 at 2:09 pm |
The Electoral College needs to be in place because it allows all states to have an equal voice. Smaller states or the “minority” should have a voice when it comes to selecting the President. In 2000 New York actually lost an electoral vote that went to Colorado because our state continues to grow, yet we only have 9 votes and the majority of people who live in Colorado live in small, rural areas.
The electoral college maintains the federal system for equal representation (if you actually think your being representated in Congress, like right now Congress could really careless about its constituents). The electoral college also allows for a two party system.
The college has been around for over 200 years and has performed its job with very little error, minus the whole 2000 election when people couldn’t follow an arrow. It needs to stay in place so that those of us who are registered to vote in smaller states have a voice.
And I have to disagree with bearded man (shocking I know) its not punishing people who live in more densely populated areas, it’s punishing people who live in smaller towns (such as my family).
TheBeardedMan // 6 March 2009 at 2:55 pm |
How is assigning more voting power to a smaller number of people equal? If you gather 6 thousand people and ask them if they like coke vs pepsi and 4 thousand say coke, are you going to give the other 2 thousand 3 votes and call it a tie? No you are going to go by some friggin Coke.
I don’t care where you are from. If more people vote for one candidate then that is the way it needs to be. Don’t tell me that because someone is from Montana that their vote counts more than mine.
http://www.270towin.com/
I guess it is no coincidence that the states who feel they need this extra boost are historically republican. I refer you Forth’s example Wyoming, population 493k with 3 EC votes; a population smaller than the city of Milwaukee who accounts for approximately 1/9th of the states 10 EC votes.
Again I ask how is this fair? How is this right? If you are in the minority on any given voting issue, then you need to do a better job of winning over more voters. Don’t just take gimme votes. The population is swinging to a point where ‘white’ people are the minority. Should our votes count twice? Maybe three times? I mean we need to make sure we “have a voice” right?
TheBeardedMan // 6 March 2009 at 2:57 pm |
Err.. the Pepsi people need 2 votes. Working with Float calculations all day makes my number crunching suck.
FarmacyMan // 9 March 2009 at 3:50 pm |
I can count by 5!
TheBeardedMan // 9 March 2009 at 5:59 pm |
That and your good looks will get you a coke and a pat on the back.