7 ms·

Wyoming gets 7 electoral votes per million people, while New York gets only 1.9. That's a 3.6x difference -- I would hardly call that a "small" edge.

dmix 7y ago
Those aren't static numbers though. California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1850s (edit) and now they have 55 (Wyoming has always had 3, New York has 29 today down from a peak of 47 in the 1940s). The ratio of votes per capita is relatively consistent - assuming a baseline level of votes so individual states aren't totally excluded - and is more a sign of a potential problem with the distribution not the system itself. But there's plenty of arguments which favour both ways. Much like gerrymandering, which both sides have a long legal record of accusing the other of taking advantage of as the last two Supreme Court cases on the matter clearly demonstrates - each by the other, this seems to be a who's on the "winning" side motivation which misses the bigger picture. In this case it's the smaller states who have been basically given a guaranteed entrance ticket to play the game, which is different than simply giving the state extra votes relative to their size. It functions almost as a social safety net which gives you a shot, not a good shot at that, but only if you'd otherwise have no other shot. If it was only per capita (even with balancing for size) the numbers would look a lot different.
- jonas21 7y ago
  > California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1950s California had 32 electoral votes in the 1950s. You may have meant the 1850s, when California did have only 4 electoral votes. That's because California was tiny back then, with a population of under 100,000 in 1850. The electoral votes per capita has always been heavily skewed in favor small states. While it's true that some formerly small states have grown into large states, I don't see how that's relevant.
  - dmix 7y ago
    It's relevant because the numbers could be updated, while still giving the smaller states an entry ticket, while eliminating the only valid arguments against the whole policy (high multiples which are completely disconnected from population - not only when necessary, even among the big fast growing states like Texas). The other stuff about battleground states would have only a small connection to the electoral college, as even the small states would (still) only have a small amounts of votes, and have more to do with regional political trends. Of course there will be push back from who ever most benefits currently. But I'm sure the political machines will learn to adapt and adjust for their new markets. There will always be enough moderates to swing both ways. Each only has to focus on the important ones, so changing who is important shouldn't hurt the parties unless they don't like having power. Re 1850, thanks I updated my comment, I should note that doesn't change the fact they're not static.
hyperpape 7y ago
True, at that extreme, it's big, and I probably could state my claim more precisely. Here's my claim: if you drew a curve of electoral votes per person by percentile, there would be a very small area that was significantly elevated, and the remaining portion would be moderately flat. Because Wyoming's population is so small, the absolute impact isn't that big. Go up just a few spots to Hawaii and it's more like a 2:1 ratio. Yet still, substantially less than 10% of the population lives in such small states. So there's a very small minority of people who have a proportionally larger impact (but still a small impact in absolute terms). To be clear, I think that's a bad result. So far as the democratic process can allow it, our votes should have equal weight. But it's somewhat exaggerated how systematic of an effect it has. In the same vein, I've argued that the best defense of the electoral college is that it only errs by giving the wrong result in elections that were already very close. In contrast, the Senate is thoroughly anti-democratic, unsalvagably so. (Btw: I can't replicate your math. New York had 19,378,102 people in 2010, and 29 votes = 1.49 votes / million. Wyoming had 563,626 and 3 votes = 5.32 votes / million).
- delecti 7y ago
  This [1] is population/EC vote rather than EC vote/population, and it's slightly out of order, but it's a steady slope. There's nothing like a normal distribution for people/EC vote ratio. There's just a large range between the power of a California voter and the power of a Wyoming voter. I think this graph shows just how ridiculous this is, Rhode Island voters being inexplicably much less powerful than Connecticut voters, when arguably they're all the same metro with either Boston or NYC, and would thus count as getting just as many "visits" if candidates only visited big population hubs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_2010_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_2010_Census_State_Popu...
  - hyperpape 7y ago
    But it’s by state, not by population, so it overstates the import of small states.
- sachdevap 7y ago
your-nanny 7y ago
Wyoming is a state and this country is a union of states, not acres, or arbitrary units of population. We've failed to communicate the actual point of all this, which is to make sure each state--and not population districts--get representation at the federal level. If you have a problem with all this you should be asking: why do we need states?
- corebit 7y ago
  I don't see this point often enough. People just want to do whatever tweak to the system will get them their short term boost and damn the consequences and long-term thinking.
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    There's a whole body called the Senate that gives small states equal representation. As it stands, the presidency is the only elected federal office where individuals aren't elected by popular choice.
- flamingbuffalo 7y ago
  Wyoming gets 2 senators, same as California - which means their residents get massively MORE representation at the federal level.
  - your-nanny 7y ago
    Then move to Wyoming. States are entities of political significance, regardless of how many people happen to live in them. This is a union of states, and states get a say. If you don't believe that consider advocating for the replacement of states with population based administrative districts.
    - greenpizza13 7y ago
      > Then move to Wyoming. This is such an overwhelmingly stupid statement. It's effectively "if you don't like it, then leave." Wyoming is not as desirable as California in many ways. People don't want to go there. Just because it's not as desirable doesn't mean it should get arbitrary favoritism when it comes to elections.
abstractbarista 7y ago
Ahh but WY has 0.577M people while NY has 8.623M! Thus, NY still has more "pull" than WY. Electoral college just helps level the field a bit.

dmix 7y ago

Those aren't static numbers though. California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1850s (edit) and now they have 55 (Wyoming has always had 3, New York has 29 today down from a peak of 47 in the 1940s). The ratio of votes per capita is relatively consistent - assuming a baseline level of votes so individual states aren't totally excluded - and is more a sign of a potential problem with the distribution not the system itself. But there's plenty of arguments which favour both ways. Much like gerrymandering, which both sides have a long legal record of accusing the other of taking advantage of as the last two Supreme Court cases on the matter clearly demonstrates - each by the other, this seems to be a who's on the "winning" side motivation which misses the bigger picture. In this case it's the smaller states who have been basically given a guaranteed entrance ticket to play the game, which is different than simply giving the state extra votes relative to their size. It functions almost as a social safety net which gives you a shot, not a good shot at that, but only if you'd otherwise have no other shot. If it was only per capita (even with balancing for size) the numbers would look a lot different.

jonas21 7y ago
> California used to have 4 electoral votes in 1950s California had 32 electoral votes in the 1950s. You may have meant the 1850s, when California did have only 4 electoral votes. That's because California was tiny back then, with a population of under 100,000 in 1850. The electoral votes per capita has always been heavily skewed in favor small states. While it's true that some formerly small states have grown into large states, I don't see how that's relevant.
- dmix 7y ago
  It's relevant because the numbers could be updated, while still giving the smaller states an entry ticket, while eliminating the only valid arguments against the whole policy (high multiples which are completely disconnected from population - not only when necessary, even among the big fast growing states like Texas). The other stuff about battleground states would have only a small connection to the electoral college, as even the small states would (still) only have a small amounts of votes, and have more to do with regional political trends. Of course there will be push back from who ever most benefits currently. But I'm sure the political machines will learn to adapt and adjust for their new markets. There will always be enough moderates to swing both ways. Each only has to focus on the important ones, so changing who is important shouldn't hurt the parties unless they don't like having power. Re 1850, thanks I updated my comment, I should note that doesn't change the fact they're not static.

hyperpape 7y ago

True, at that extreme, it's big, and I probably could state my claim more precisely. Here's my claim: if you drew a curve of electoral votes per person by percentile, there would be a very small area that was significantly elevated, and the remaining portion would be moderately flat. Because Wyoming's population is so small, the absolute impact isn't that big. Go up just a few spots to Hawaii and it's more like a 2:1 ratio. Yet still, substantially less than 10% of the population lives in such small states. So there's a very small minority of people who have a proportionally larger impact (but still a small impact in absolute terms). To be clear, I think that's a bad result. So far as the democratic process can allow it, our votes should have equal weight. But it's somewhat exaggerated how systematic of an effect it has. In the same vein, I've argued that the best defense of the electoral college is that it only errs by giving the wrong result in elections that were already very close. In contrast, the Senate is thoroughly anti-democratic, unsalvagably so. (Btw: I can't replicate your math. New York had 19,378,102 people in 2010, and 29 votes = 1.49 votes / million. Wyoming had 563,626 and 3 votes = 5.32 votes / million).

delecti 7y ago
This [1] is population/EC vote rather than EC vote/population, and it's slightly out of order, but it's a steady slope. There's nothing like a normal distribution for people/EC vote ratio. There's just a large range between the power of a California voter and the power of a Wyoming voter. I think this graph shows just how ridiculous this is, Rhode Island voters being inexplicably much less powerful than Connecticut voters, when arguably they're all the same metro with either Boston or NYC, and would thus count as getting just as many "visits" if candidates only visited big population hubs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_2010_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_2010_Census_State_Popu...
- hyperpape 7y ago
  But it’s by state, not by population, so it overstates the import of small states.
sachdevap 7y ago

your-nanny 7y ago

Wyoming is a state and this country is a union of states, not acres, or arbitrary units of population. We've failed to communicate the actual point of all this, which is to make sure each state--and not population districts--get representation at the federal level. If you have a problem with all this you should be asking: why do we need states?

corebit 7y ago
I don't see this point often enough. People just want to do whatever tweak to the system will get them their short term boost and damn the consequences and long-term thinking.
- notfromhere 7y ago
  There's a whole body called the Senate that gives small states equal representation. As it stands, the presidency is the only elected federal office where individuals aren't elected by popular choice.
flamingbuffalo 7y ago
Wyoming gets 2 senators, same as California - which means their residents get massively MORE representation at the federal level.
- your-nanny 7y ago
  Then move to Wyoming. States are entities of political significance, regardless of how many people happen to live in them. This is a union of states, and states get a say. If you don't believe that consider advocating for the replacement of states with population based administrative districts.
  - greenpizza13 7y ago
    > Then move to Wyoming. This is such an overwhelmingly stupid statement. It's effectively "if you don't like it, then leave." Wyoming is not as desirable as California in many ways. People don't want to go there. Just because it's not as desirable doesn't mean it should get arbitrary favoritism when it comes to elections.

abstractbarista 7y ago

Ahh but WY has 0.577M people while NY has 8.623M! Thus, NY still has more "pull" than WY. Electoral college just helps level the field a bit.