Votes from that state? This might seem odd to anyone not already familiar with this archaic system. Instead of counting all the votes across the country and giving the election to whomever receives the most, we allocate a certain amount of Electoral College votes to each state who then select delegates to vote on behalf of the citizens of their state. The worst part is that it isn't really proportional to the number of people in each state, it is determined by the number of representatives from each state in both the House of Representatives (lower chamber) and Senate (upper chamber). The members of the House are roughly proportional to the population but this number is skewed since each state (regardless of population) receives 2 representatives in the Senate. This means that the distribution of political power is skewed towards the least populous states and away from the most populous. For example, Wyoming receives 3 Electoral College votes for their roughly 582,000 residents while California receives 55 votes for a population of 38.33 million. That means that it takes less than 200,000 people to received an electoral vote in Wyoming but almost 700,000 voters in California to receive an electoral vote. Clearly, the power of the Wyoming voter is enhanced related to that of California.
The argument stresses that the Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to tend to the concerns of a greater variety of Americans. It might not be fair, per se, but it might be more representative. Any thoughts, comment below.
Anyone unfamiliar with this system will find what I just wrote surprising and confusing. To be honest, I had a hard time even trying to explain the system in words. I'm not sure I would really defend this system if given the opportunity to change it. Nevertheless I tried to make just such a case in a response paper I wrote on Sanford Levinson's Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It). I have attached the brief portion of the paper where I discuss the Electoral College system. I have developed the idea further elsewhere, (and I am not the only one who has made a similar argument) but this brief snippet can clearly express the gist of the argument. Are you convinced?
"Switching to a popular vote for President would advantage dense urban areas, especially in populous states, over rural low population states. In a popular vote election for president would any candidate ever fly to campaign in Wyoming or Iowa or would they merely fly from Los Angeles to New York with brief stops in Chicago or Dallas or some other large city? The real question we should ask about the Electoral College is whether the “important” voters in that system are more representative of the diversity of the country than the “important” voters in a direct election. In a direct election only urban residents in densely populated cities are “important” while the Electoral College system gives importance to every citizen in swing states. Even if we hypothesize an election determined solely by the voters of say Ohio, they might be somewhat reasonably representative. Because so much is riding on every vote in Ohio, every citizen, young and old, rich and poor, urban and rural, male and female of every race and heritage and all religions as well. So much is riding on so few votes that not even a single vote can be abandoned, but preference will be given to larger groups. Voters in California and every other state might be abandoned, but rural voters in California might be better represented by this system than even a popular election. "
The argument stresses that the Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to tend to the concerns of a greater variety of Americans. It might not be fair, per se, but it might be more representative. Any thoughts, comment below.
