I see people speak about the electoral?

Question

college and people maintain that the system is fair because it allows less populated states to have a voice in government and keeps the more populated states from taking things over. How can that be true if ec votes are based on population? FL still has more electoral votes than WY and is, therefore, still "more important." I've asked this question a thousand times but no one seems to be able to sufficiently answer. I went to a super liberal college so all my professors had to say was "get rid of it," and I tend to agree based on my understanding (which I freely admit could be imperfect) of how it works.

Thanks for the great answers. I guess to piggy back onto the question, wouldn't it still be better to have a popular vote? If the EC is minimizing the influence of larger states, isn't that kind of downplaying the wishes of the American public since this is (though not technically I guess) a democratic nation? If the majority of America wants "x," then "x" should happen regardless of where those people live, right?

Thanks for all of the thoughtful answers and the links. I understand that we live in a Republic (hence the parenthetic "technically not") but we're trying to spread the values of democracy across the world and should, therefore, lead by example. It's not right to stiffle the will of most to accommadate the will of a few. The majority of the country does not approve of this administration and never has but they remain in power because the opinions of most are negated in a misguided attempt at fairness which isn't fair at all. To have a man who was not elected by the people go into a foreign nation and espouse the values of democracy is irony at it's finest and hypocrisy at its worst. I was studying abroad during the 2000 elections and all of Europe was laughing and scratching their heads. This isn't an attack on the Bush administration, it's just stating the facts as I see them.

Answer 1

According to the first linked site, California (in July 2005) had an estimated 36,132,147 people. Wyoming, on the other hand, had 509,294. So California has roughly 71 people for every one that Wyoming has.

Now, California gets 55 electoral college votes (second linked site), whereas Wyoming has 3.

So even though California has 71 times as many people as Wyoming, it only has 18 times as many electoral college votes. The populous states will always have more electoral college votes, but this is the compromise: no one will ever have none.

So whereas the larger states have an advantage based on a large populous, the electoral college does still provide the smaller states with a say...it is disproportionate based on population size (one may ration that CA should have 213 votes if WY has 3). But it's more balancing in that our government doesn't usually work on an individual level, but rather on a state/government level.

Who the president is has large implications on how policies will change that effect the states. If a smaller state (Wyoming), is, culturally, more supportive of a "Republican" life-style and we didn't have the electoral college, the "extra" democrats in California may overshadow the smaller number of Republicans in Wyoming, even though a higher percentage of people in Wyoming would rather have a republican president. Just because a larger number of people in the country wanted Al Gore to win in 2000, doesn't necessarily mean it was the will of the country. On a state-by-state basis, the country's will was to have bush as president (though this is clearly arguable based on the aftermath of the election...legislation, recounts, etc.).

It's just a complicated system. You can't take away the peoples' votes by saying "you elected these officials, so we'll just have them vote"...which is what happens if you just give every state governor one vote to cast for him/herself on behalf of the people. But if you leave it entirely to the people without checking it with the electoral college, smaller states may disproportionately experience challenges to their beliefs/livelihoods by having even less say in the election.

I tend to think that the EC should be done away with it, but this is what the "founding fathers" agreed upon. This way, California and New York cannot completely carry the vote with their large populations, nor will Rhode Island, Wyoming, and the like be rendered completely inconsequential in the voting process.

Answer 2

Because the votes that would be based on population would be the representative votes, not the senatorial votes. Every state has two senatorial EC votes that would go to the winner. The rest of the EC votes would be split by the voter proportions. States like Wyoming wouldn't be affected because they only get one representative vote anyway.

I see nothing wrong with the EC. If people in larger states want to portion their votes out, more power to them; they can already do it. The smaller states would be stupid to do it without the big states doing it first.

Unless an amendment is passed, any federal law mandating this would be unconstitutional anyway, so don't hold your breath.


Edit: We are not a democratic country, we are a republic. The foundation of the government is that while the majority sets that laws in place, it has to do so in a manner that respects the rights of the minority. If it wasn't set up like that, it would just have devolved into a mob-ruled country that would be little better than the stuff you see in places like Italy or Greece, places where they change governments every six months or so because of the incessant calls for new votes.

Answer 3

The reason the EC "works" as well as it does (remember, it has only "failed" twice in over 200 years!) is because it protects on a national level more so than a state level.

First, understand that each state gets to decide how its electors are chosen. Some few of them choose a proportional distribution, while the rest choose a "winner-take-all" formula.

If you look at a map of both the 2000 and 2004 elections county-by-county (remember the whole red-state/blue state thing?), what you see is the "popular" vote in each county reflected in red and blue. Al Gore won just 676 (very populous) counties nationwide, while George Bush won 2,436. A majority of the "Country" overwhelmingly voted for Bush, and thus the outcome of the college was correct--whether Gore's supporters like it or not.

Without the protection of the college, a candidate could simply work to win places like LA, Chicago, Miami, New York, etc., and reasonably expect to win. And what of the rest of the nation? You could tell them you don't care what they think on any issue--you don't need them!

This is exactly what the college protects against. The rest of the country has a fairly even say in who sits in the White House because of it.

If you really want to reform the college, work at your state's level to change the way your state awards electors. That is the way to reform the Electoral College.

Answer 4

The number of electoral votes is equal to the number of members of congress they have. Each state has 2 senators, regardless of size. This means that large states have a disproportionately smaller voice than small states -- and this is by design.

Wyoming has 500,000 and three electoral votes, meaning each electoral vote represents about 166,000 people. Florida, on the other hand, has about 16,000,000 people and 27 electoral votes, meaning that each electoral vote represents around 592,000 people.

So, here's what this means in the end: If you get a bunch of small states to equal the population of a large state, the small states have more votes.

In this example, to match the population of Florida, look at the combined populations of WV, NE, ID, ME, NH, RI, MT, HI, DE, AK, ND, SD, VT and WY. While both add up to about 16 million people, Florida has 27 electoral votes, and those small states control a combined 51 electoral votes.

That said, the electoral college is a good way to balance the needs of large states and small states, and still has a place in our country.

Answer 5

It's not entirely based on population.

One person in Wyoming has the same influence as 43 Californians' votes.

That is NOT FAIR.

You could look up the details as to how the Electoral votes are assigned, but it is NOT evenly based on population. Less populated states have more votes than they would if that were so (or, more populated states would have more votes).

The fact that someone who lost the popular vote, but (nearly) won the Electoral votes is enough reason to toss that anti-democratic system out for good.

Add to that the fact that it makes it easier to steal elections (as the Republicans did in 2000 by removing democrats from the voter registration lists; and in Ohio in 2004 by rigging the machines, failing to have enough machines in democratic precincts, and other chicanery) and it really needs to go.

Yesterday.

Answer 6

Let's say you have a system with free speech in it. Then a party comes along that says we shouldn't have free speech. Should they ban this party? Should a system protect itself from attacks of those who want to change the system? It happened in the US in the Civil War more or less. Lincoln said he was protecting the system, which allowed him to wage war against the South. Would the other system allow itself to be destroyed by those who are for freedom of speech? Probably not. So I would say that a system has to protect its ideals from attack.