3 ms·

The last census included non-citizen residents of those states, so this may be less true than you'd assume just based on census data. A sizable portion of the p

by jrs95 8y ago

The last census included non-citizen residents of those states, so this may be less true than you'd assume just based on census data. A sizable portion of the population in CA and TX are not eligible voters but they are represented in the electoral college anyways.

kaibee 8y ago
> A sizable portion of the population in CA and TX are not eligible voters but they are represented in the electoral college anyways. This is intended behavior. IIRC it was to address the question of whether slaves counted as members of the population for the purposes of determining number of congressmen.
alistairSH 8y ago
California has a total population (census 2010) of about 37,000,000 [1]. And about 87% of those are citizens [2]. CA has 55 electors, so roughly 585,000 citizens per elector. Wyoming has a total population (census 2010) of about 563,000. And about 98% of those are citizen. WY has 3 electors, so roughly 187,000 citizens per elector. Citizen in WY have roughly 3x the voting power as citizen in CA, due in large part to a system designed to appease slave-holding states 200 years ago. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#Electoral_apportionment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... 2 - https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-citizenship-status/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-ci...
- remarkEon 8y ago
  >Citizen[s] in WY have roughly 3x the voting power as citizen in CA Which is the point, so as to prevent high population urban centers from dictating everything to the rest of American that doesn't share their values. >due in large part to a system designed to appease slave-holding states 200 years ago. I assume you're referring to the 3/5 Compromise here. While true that this was a consideration, the underlying reasoning is still sound. It makes no more sense for San Francisco to rule over Sac City Iowa than Sac City Iowa to rule over San Francisco. That's the beauty of the system the Founders designed. Otherwise you just drift further and further toward Direct Democracy, which is a euphemism for "chaos".
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    Sure. But, by capping the total number of representatives, the large, urban states are slowly losing power in relation to the small, rural states (at least when it comes to presidential elections).

by jrs95 8y ago

kaibee 8y ago

> A sizable portion of the population in CA and TX are not eligible voters but they are represented in the electoral college anyways. This is intended behavior. IIRC it was to address the question of whether slaves counted as members of the population for the purposes of determining number of congressmen.

alistairSH 8y ago

California has a total population (census 2010) of about 37,000,000 [1]. And about 87% of those are citizens [2]. CA has 55 electors, so roughly 585,000 citizens per elector. Wyoming has a total population (census 2010) of about 563,000. And about 98% of those are citizen. WY has 3 electors, so roughly 187,000 citizens per elector. Citizen in WY have roughly 3x the voting power as citizen in CA, due in large part to a system designed to appease slave-holding states 200 years ago. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#Electoral_apportionment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... 2 - https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-citizenship-status/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-ci...

remarkEon 8y ago
>Citizen[s] in WY have roughly 3x the voting power as citizen in CA Which is the point, so as to prevent high population urban centers from dictating everything to the rest of American that doesn't share their values. >due in large part to a system designed to appease slave-holding states 200 years ago. I assume you're referring to the 3/5 Compromise here. While true that this was a consideration, the underlying reasoning is still sound. It makes no more sense for San Francisco to rule over Sac City Iowa than Sac City Iowa to rule over San Francisco. That's the beauty of the system the Founders designed. Otherwise you just drift further and further toward Direct Democracy, which is a euphemism for "chaos".
- alistairSH 8y ago
  Sure. But, by capping the total number of representatives, the large, urban states are slowly losing power in relation to the small, rural states (at least when it comes to presidential elections).