- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is the argument for the electoral college instead of a popular vote?
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:42 am to FooManChoo
quote:
It's meant to give a voice to all states instead of just the few with the highest population centers.
But those states with higher populations get more EC votes anyway.
Its not like it would be a big swing, right?
I guess I just feel like it isn't really fair to people in states that never vote outside of their red/blue ways.
Posted on 11/8/16 at 10:49 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
But those states with higher populations get more EC votes anyway.
Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes and has a population of 586,0000
California has 55 electoral college votes and has a population of almost 40 million
Therefore, each of Wyoming's electoral college votes represents about 195,333 of its states citizens whereas in California each votes represents 711,723
The electoral college lets small states have a "bigger" say in Presidential elections
If California had the same ratio as Wyoming, it would have over 200 electoral college votes for example
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 10:50 am
Posted on 11/8/16 at 2:01 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
But those states with higher populations get more EC votes anyway.
Not nearly enough more to balance the scales. One voter in, say, Wyoming has as much impact on who wins the Presidency as something like six voters in California. Not only does adding the two extra electoral votes per state drastically imbalance the election in favor of smaller states, but there is huge imbalance in the number of people per congressional district in different states, so even discounting the two electoral votes per state from the senate seats, a state with, say, five times the population of another state usually does not have five times as many seats in the House or five times as many electoral votes. The people of the smaller states, having enjoyed this unfair advantage for a long time, don't want to give it up.
It's even more unbalanced on state-by-state things like ratifying constitutional amendments. A constitutional amendment must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states, or 38 out of the current 50. That means it only takes 13 states to defeat a constitutional amendment. The combined population of the smallest 13 states is roughly 14 million people, according to 2013 estimates. If those states went by popular referendum to decide whether to ratify an amendment, it would take only about 7 million people in those 13 states (or just 2.2% of the U.S. population) to block a constitutional amendment.
It's stupid, it's ridiculous, it's unfair, but the smaller states are never going to let it change, so there's no point even discussing it.
This post was edited on 11/8/16 at 2:11 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News