4 ms·

>Wyoming voters made up 0.193% of the total popular vote in 2012. That would earn them a total of one electoral vote. In reality Wyoming gets 3. and they get t

>Wyoming voters made up 0.193% of the total popular vote in 2012. That would earn them a total of one electoral vote. In reality Wyoming gets 3. and they get the same amount of senators as California or NY. This is why US politics will always lean conservative. There are just too many "fly over states" with tiny conservative populations that have an undue influence on national elections. All too often "money in politics" are blamed for the lack of liberal or progressive changes in the nation. That's a red herring for the most part, or at least, problem #2. With a system like this its very difficult to put in liberal reforms. Hell, Obamacare, which is pretty much a Reagan-era proposal, barely got passed with a Democratic majority in almost all branches of government. Even after passing, its been endlessly disputed with at least two major losses to the law via SCOTUS. Those courts? Packed with conservative leaning judges by POTUS, who has a major advantage to winning if he's a conservative. This stuff comes full circle and starts with the over-representation of lowly populated conservative areas.

twoodfin 11y ago
Vermont and Rhode Island get two senators apiece as well, and they're not exactly the most conservative states.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  I count 13-16 low population states. Pretty much all of them are red states. Vermont and Rhode Island don't remotely make up for it. The reality is that if you live in a highly populated state, your voting influence is greatly diluted compared to the people in these states. Hell, the city I live in has TWICE the population of North and South Dakota combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#/media/File:Map_of_each_state%27s_population_as_of_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
  - mvymvy 11y ago
    Count again. Of the 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012. In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58). In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58). Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
  - mvymvy 11y ago
    With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. 16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city. The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

twoodfin 11y ago

Vermont and Rhode Island get two senators apiece as well, and they're not exactly the most conservative states.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
I count 13-16 low population states. Pretty much all of them are red states. Vermont and Rhode Island don't remotely make up for it. The reality is that if you live in a highly populated state, your voting influence is greatly diluted compared to the people in these states. Hell, the city I live in has TWICE the population of North and South Dakota combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#/media/File:Map_of_each_state%27s_population_as_of_2013.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- mvymvy 11y ago
  Count again. Of the 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012. In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58). In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58). Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office. In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined. Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
- mvymvy 11y ago
  With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. 16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004. Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats. Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city. The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.