Isn't it true that the electoral vote ultimately takes away the advantage of highly populated areas?

Question

I know that may not have been its intent, but isn't it a result?

Answer 1

If Gore had won the Electoral Vote and W won the popular vote in 2000, the cons would have went bananas! and they wouldn't have stopped until the law was changed!

Answer 2

I have always viewed the Electoral College as a flawed system. The President should be selected by the popular vote, this is the essence of Democracy. I believe the College helps perpetuate the notion that many have that their vote doesn't really count. Example: If you live in California and you are a Republican. What value is your vote knowing that the predominance of Democratic voters in the state will nullify your choice by virtue of sheer numbers? If we were to do away with the college I do believe many more people would feel that their vote might matter and it might make a significant difference in voter turnout in Presidential elections.

Edit: The New York and California arguments have some validity, but they discount 2 facts.
1) Not all voters in either of these states are Democrats.
2) There are some other pretty populous states out there. For instances, Texas has 3 of the Top 10 most populated cities in the country.

You cannot ignore voter turnout cause and effect across the country as a whole based solely on a couple of cities with large populations. This is because when faced with this dilemma more people might choose to have their voice heard and in turn nullify the large city advantage on a countrywide scale.

Answer 3

True, but not as seriously as it affects the U.S. Senate, where all states have an equal number of seats. The Electoral College awards those, plus 435 seats for the number of Representatives in the House, which IS based on census figures. Hey! Maybe that's why Bush supports amnesty - the census counts non-citizens, and Texas has more than does the average state. The intent of the Founders was not all bad, however. Alaska has very different concerns than California, and Rhode Island has different issues than New York. Farming states typically have lower populations, but if their interests are under-represented, well, crowded cities need food too. Maybe a direct vote is better, just so we don't have another 2000 fiasco, but if both candidates are from New York in 2008, not of this will matter anyway.

Answer 4

Not exactly. The winner-take-all system effectively nullifies the votes of dissenters in highly populous states, though.

Hypothetically, for instance, if you had two-third's the nation's population in one state, and one third in all other's combined, a candiate that won 51% in that state would win, even if everyone in every other state voted for the other guy (which'd come out to about 66% of the popular vote).

Since I live in CA, I'm keenly aware of the phenomenon.

Answer 5

Yes. Actually that was its intent!! I think its has good points and bad points. It stops the major cities from just deciding the election on the plus side. It also limits the effectivness of 3rd party candidates, On the bad side.\

So I think it is better then a majority vote for sure and only in a couple of cases was it not the same as a majority vote anyway!

Answer 6

It does not sit well with me that someones vote in a less populated state has up to 4 times the power of someone living in a highly populated area. Is that fair?

Answer 7

It isn't a perfect system, I don't think any one will argue that, but it is the best way we can make sure the people in rural, and lightly populated areas and states get some carry out of there votes.

Answer 8

I'm with me2. Yes but California or New York speaking for the rest of the country? I think not!

Answer 9

Its the intent in some ways so that you can not just campaign in all the big urban states and forget about rural states or states with minimal populations.

Answer 10

Yes.