Analyzing the Electoral College 193
cft_128 writes "David S. Bennahum of has an article that breaks down the numbers in the electoral college, backing up his original 'One Voter One Vote' talk (listen to the mp4). In summary, a vote in Wyoming (has the smallest number of voters per elector) is worth 2.6 votes in Pennsylvania (has the largest number of voters per elector). He has some PDFs of charts, an outline of the talk and a spreadsheet."
It's worse than that. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not the best way to look at it (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny thing is that the Electoral College system creates tyranny of the majority- within each state.
Let's use Texas as an example (although something similar happens in most states). There are a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats. When they vote for President, however, ALL the electoral votes go to Bush, instead of the Democrats sending their 30% to Kerry.
But that would also imply that Iowa's not important - and it is.
If Iowa was really important, then the voters in California would see that (especially when they start paying those farmers for food).
Let's think of some other cases where something important is represented by only a minority of the population...
You know what? I think that the USA is unfairly biased towards the uneducated. Equal voting means that high-school graduates far, far outrank PhDs. But that implies that learned people aren't important- and they are. Neglecting collegians in favor of ignoramuses would mean creating a blanket of idiocy, sinking the country towards the lowest common denominator. So I suggest multipling each person's vote by the number of diploma's she's recieved.
Also, CEOs and entrepeneurs are the drivers of economic growth- they push the creation of wealth that benefits everyone. Let's give business owners one extra vote per $250,000 annual income.
How can you attack my proposals, while defending your own? They have the same basis- a person deserves more power, because he's got more of something- real estate, or education, or money, or whatever.
Neglecting Iowa at the expense of California would mean that you'd essentially create a mecca of civilization, surrounded by an expanse of decaying towns.
If that's where fairness leads, then so be it. If equal voting power and equal ability to participate in the free market aren't enough to give those towns viability, then let them die.
PS. The use of the word "expense" in your post was completely nonsensical. In that sentence, "at the expense" should've been "in favor".
What would it take to scrap it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Four years ago, I would have said "Have someone lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote." Obviously I was wrong. But 2000 was a special case -- all the controversy swirling around Florida meant that by the time things were finally settled, no one wanted to think or hear about presidential elections anymore. In fact, there are any number of both Bush and Gore supporters from 2000 who probably don't even know, or quickly forgot, that Gore came in first in the popular vote overall.
So, what if this year the same thing happens, but the parties reverse -- Kerry wins the Electoral College (and the presidency), Bush wins the popular vote? Would the two parties see the last two elections as enough impetus to change or scrap the EC? Even if the national parties agreed, could they enforce party discipline on the state level to push the necessary constitutional changes through the state legislatures?
For my personal opinion -- I say scrap it, or at least modify it so that the whole country does a proportional or by-congressional-district apportionment like Maine and Nebraska. I know all the arguments about federalism -- I just don't find them that persuasive or relevant. The bottom line is that the Presidency and the U.S. central government are now so powerful, and so intrusive in people's lives, that to give some U.S. citizens extra voting power just because of where they happen to live extremely undemocratic. And yes, with modern American mobility, it *is* a matter of "where they happen to live" -- people move across state lines all the time, and I don't think loyalty to one's home state is anywhere near what it used to be.
In addition, several of the founding concepts of the system seem to be to flawed or no longer relevant. States of a similar size don't necessarily have similar interestes -- compare D.C. and Wyoming (3 EVs), Maryland and Arizona (10 EVs), New York and Texas (31-34 EVs). And states don't necessarily have monolithic interests -- New York and California both contains regions with wildly different demographic and political profiles.
jf