Electoral College people per electoral vote?

Question

I remember seeing something a while back that put the electoral college into context by comparing the value of one citizen's vote in one state to that of another. For example, due to the weighting of the electoral college, one the vote of a person in California may count half as much as that of one in Idaho. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please direct me to the correct place. Thanks!

Answer 1

The electoral college needs to be removed! The way it is now, one persons vote in one state is worth more than another person's vote in another state, in addition to the reason you described, since each state has electoral members representative of their populations. But because, if you live in an overly democratic or overly republican state, it won't matter if you are the opposite of the majority in that state. Which results in that state's electoral votes going to a candidate regardless of your vote. If you live in a swing state, however, it is unclear which party will win the state. So each person's vote is worth more, and therefore, each person's vote is more necessary in the state's electoral vote going to a certain candidate.

Answer 2

The electoral college is effectively weighted slightly towards small states. Each state's electoral vote is equal to its members of Congress; representation in the House of Representatives is based upon population, but each state receives two Senators, and each state is guaranteed at least one representative. Therefore, Wyoming, with just over half a million people gets 3 votes, while California, with just under 36 and a half million gets 55.

The math comes out to: 1.5 electoral votes per million people in California; 6 electoral votes per million people in Wyoming. Therefore, a vote is worth four times as much electoral weight in Wyoming as it is in California. However, you must keep in mind that Wyoming still has only three votes, in an electoral college of 538 (100 Senators + 435 Representatives + 3 for D.C., which has no Congressional representation), three is hardly a drop in the bucket.

Answer 3

It cannot be that different between states, because Representatives are apportioned based on population.

Now, with the +2 (for Senator-equivalent electors) per state, the effective ratio of electoral votes per population might end up skewed. Because (for example) if a state would only be entitled to one Rep by population, but gets three electoral votes, that population counts triple overall.

But that's the entire point of the electoral college -- to balance against the fact that less populous states would otherwise not count at all in the electoral process. That's why it's based on population, plus +2 total. It gives the low population states a slight chance to actually count for something in the overall vote.

Otherwise, there's no point in 20 of the states bothering to vote, because their votes (even added together) would not be as much as the most populous 1 or 2 states.

Answer 4

time to go to direct poputation vote we have the technology

Answer 5

This is all political maneuvering for power in Washington.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm