3 ms·

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 perc

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
To quantify that "very close", in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, which is 1.5% of the voting population. I would not call that very close. It isn't a difference of some 1000 votes. It's an election of a minority leader.
- newfriend 7y ago
  It was an election of a majority leader. The majority of electoral votes were for Donald Trump, by a large margin. The house is elected by population, the senate by state. The electoral college is designed to be a blend of the house and senate systems.
  - sachdevap 7y ago
    Well, if we're talking of why electoral college was designed to be this way, then we should read the intention of the founders. > As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” [0] Firstly, that has nothing to do with a "blend", and secondly that purpose was far from served. I rest my case. [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...
    - Kerrick 7y ago
      In those days I don’t think the electoral college members were bound by law to vote for the president that state-run popular votes determine are the state’s choice. Of course the purpose isn’t being served if the men and women of the college aren’t allowed to act on their own.
jonas21 7y ago
On one hand, I agree with you that the impact of states with high voting power is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they're small, and the effect of the electoral college only comes into play in elections that are relatively close to begin with. But on the other hand: a) All recent presidential elections have been close in popular vote. And as the article points out, two of the last three presidents have won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. b) Everyone would be appalled by any other large systematic difference in voting power, even if the overall impact was limited. Can you imagine if instead of going by state, we decided to go by income and the top 0.2% of people were given 3.6 votes each? People would lose their minds. As for the math, I was using electoral votes divided by the voting-age population of each state in the 2010 Census. So, Wyoming is 3 EV / 0.428M = 7.0 EV/M and New York is 29 EV / 15.053M = 1.9 EV/M. If you use total population instead, you get the basically the same ratio (3.55x vs 3.64x).
zeveb 7y ago
> In contrast, the Senate is thoroughly anti-democratic, unsalvagably so. Why is that bad? The Senate represents the states, the other sovereign entities in our federal republic. I think that a) we should amend the Constitution to eliminate the direct election of Senators and mandating that they be appointed by the state legislatures; b) amend the Constitution to apportion 1 representative per 40,000–60,000 people (yes, this would mean over 6,000 representatives); c) amend the Constitution to mandate a similar structure for the states, with each state legislature required to be bicameral, with senators appointed by the counties and independent cities and representatives elected by the people. Note that greatly increasing the number of representatives would make the Electoral College much more democratic. I'm not terribly fond of that, but it's a price I'm willing to pay for an overall healthier republic.
- zeveb 7y ago
  Do any of the downvoters have a counterargument? I'm genuinely curious.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    The downvotes are probably from those who see your proposal as still maintaining the powers of the states. The core dogma behind abolishing the Senate is the removal of the power of the state and placing it all in the population centers.

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

To quantify that "very close", in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, which is 1.5% of the voting population. I would not call that very close. It isn't a difference of some 1000 votes. It's an election of a minority leader.

newfriend 7y ago
It was an election of a majority leader. The majority of electoral votes were for Donald Trump, by a large margin. The house is elected by population, the senate by state. The electoral college is designed to be a blend of the house and senate systems.
- sachdevap 7y ago
  Well, if we're talking of why electoral college was designed to be this way, then we should read the intention of the founders. > As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” [0] Firstly, that has nothing to do with a "blend", and secondly that purpose was far from served. I rest my case. [0] https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-elector...
  - Kerrick 7y ago
    In those days I don’t think the electoral college members were bound by law to vote for the president that state-run popular votes determine are the state’s choice. Of course the purpose isn’t being served if the men and women of the college aren’t allowed to act on their own.

jonas21 7y ago

On one hand, I agree with you that the impact of states with high voting power is somewhat mitigated by the fact that they're small, and the effect of the electoral college only comes into play in elections that are relatively close to begin with. But on the other hand: a) All recent presidential elections have been close in popular vote. And as the article points out, two of the last three presidents have won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. b) Everyone would be appalled by any other large systematic difference in voting power, even if the overall impact was limited. Can you imagine if instead of going by state, we decided to go by income and the top 0.2% of people were given 3.6 votes each? People would lose their minds. As for the math, I was using electoral votes divided by the voting-age population of each state in the 2010 Census. So, Wyoming is 3 EV / 0.428M = 7.0 EV/M and New York is 29 EV / 15.053M = 1.9 EV/M. If you use total population instead, you get the basically the same ratio (3.55x vs 3.64x).

zeveb 7y ago

> In contrast, the Senate is thoroughly anti-democratic, unsalvagably so. Why is that bad? The Senate represents the states, the other sovereign entities in our federal republic. I think that a) we should amend the Constitution to eliminate the direct election of Senators and mandating that they be appointed by the state legislatures; b) amend the Constitution to apportion 1 representative per 40,000–60,000 people (yes, this would mean over 6,000 representatives); c) amend the Constitution to mandate a similar structure for the states, with each state legislature required to be bicameral, with senators appointed by the counties and independent cities and representatives elected by the people. Note that greatly increasing the number of representatives would make the Electoral College much more democratic. I'm not terribly fond of that, but it's a price I'm willing to pay for an overall healthier republic.

zeveb 7y ago
Do any of the downvoters have a counterargument? I'm genuinely curious.
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  The downvotes are probably from those who see your proposal as still maintaining the powers of the states. The core dogma behind abolishing the Senate is the removal of the power of the state and placing it all in the population centers.