Why not practically double the ELECTORAL COLLEGE to 1100?

[bonncaruso]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

[BushKenya]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

[Padfoot]

The Electoral College is designed to give states with small populations more influence so that they are not too overshadowed by the larger states.  Besides, Democrats actually take in quite a few of the small states as well.  Including DC there are 13 states with 4 or fewer electoral votes and together they total 44 electoral votes (approximately 8.2% of all electoral votes).  Republicans "control" 19 of those votes and Democrats have the other 25.  So really if you want to point fingers it is the Democrats getting an unfair advantage here especially since DC isn't even a state.

However I sort of agree with your proposal in that I favor an increase in the size of the House which would automatically increase the size of the Electoral College.

[Big DaddyTX]

You just got served.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Abolish the EC already. Screw the peasants in the small states.

[Big DaddyTX]

Abolishing the EC, bad idea.

[bonncaruso]

  "So really if you want to point fingers it is the Democrats getting an unfair advantage here especially since DC isn't even a state.

However I sort of agree with your proposal in that I favor an increase in the size of the House which would automatically increase the size of the Electoral College.
[/quote]

No, I am not interested in pointing fingers, but the issue is truly of fairness. Why should a vote in Florida or Pennsylvania be less worth than a vote from Utah, only because the EC has been stacked to make sure that the smaller states don't "feel" left out? They are already disproportionally represented as even the smallest of states get 2 EV regardless of population, one for each senator.

Much more fair would be by procent: State A comprises 3% of the US population and would have 3% of 900 electors (27) + 2 for it's Senators = 29 EV. By more than doubling the number of electors corresponding to electoral districts, one takes some of the sting out of the automatic skewing caused by every state automatically having 2 electors for it's senators. In this way, the small states still carry more weight per capita, but less than under the current system.

[bonncaruso]

My original calculation has a typo in it: meant 1000 EV and not 1100. Sorry for the confusion.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Abolishing the EC, bad idea.

People from the small states aren't worth more than those of us from NY or CA.

[Padfoot]

No, I am not interested in pointing fingers, but the issue is truly of fairness. Why should a vote in Florida or Pennsylvania be less worth than a vote from Utah, only because the EC has been stacked to make sure that the smaller states don't "feel" left out? They are already disproportionally represented as even the smallest of states get 2 EV regardless of population, one for each senator.

Much more fair would be by procent: State A comprises 3% of the US population and would have 3% of 900 electors (27) + 2 for it's Senators = 29 EV. By more than doubling the number of electors corresponding to electoral districts, one takes some of the sting out of the automatic skewing caused by every state automatically having 2 electors for it's senators. In this way, the small states still carry more weight per capita, but less than under the current system.

I'm very much against this proposed change.  The number of EVs a state has should correspond directly to the number of congressmen from that state.  If you want to increase the size of the House (which would effectively bring the same result) that is fine but I don't think we need to meddle with how EVs are apportioned.  The EC was designed to make sure large states still have the most EVs but it was also designed to ensure the small states aren't ignored just because they have less people.  The large states already have a big voice because of their population.  The smaller states need a little boost to make sure they don't become disenfranchised.

[Tender Branson]

I agree with you Bonncaruso. I already created maps for it in a seperate topic:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=60832.0

2008 Maps showing the difference between the current system and this one:

Current System:

Rudy Giuliani - 274
Hillary Clinton - 264



EC expanded to 1.000 and relative representation:

Hillary Clinton - 505
Rudy Giuliani - 495

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The Electoral Vote is a relic from a past time which is long gone. The time to end it was 1870-1890 when railroads/telegraphs made it pointless. And we still have it TODAY?! EPIC FAIL

[bonncaruso]

easy mathematical example, based on 1000 electors, 100 of which are for the 2 Senators of each state, and 900 electors for the population of the entire US.

Census 2000: 281,421,906 in the US

Two states:

1.) Montana, population 910,651 (0.3 percent of the total population).
Montana has 3 EV, 2 for it's senators and 1 for it's district.
0.3% of 535 Electors = 1.6 EV, a discrepancy of 1.4 EV which must be made up by taking 1.4 EV away from another state.
3 EV out of 535 is 0.56% of the total electoral college, a positive discrepancy of 0.36% in terms of actual population.


2.) Ohio, population 11,155,606 (4.1 percent of the total population).
4.1 % of 535 EV = 21.9 EV, but Ohio only has 20 EV, which means it had to give up 1.9 (practically 2) EV for a smaller state. 20 EV out of 535 is 3.7% of the EC, or a negative discrepancy by 0.4% in terms of actual population.

Now, let's work it up with 1000 electors, place 100 of them to the side (representing the senators in each state) and recalculate based on 900 EV:


1.) Montana, population 910,651 (0.3 percent of the total population).
0.3% of 900 EV= 2.7 EV +2 = 4.7 EV, rounded to 5.
5 EV is 0.5% of the EC,0.2% positive disparity, less of a disparity as by the current method and still an advantage for Montana, being a small state.


2.) Ohio, population 11,155,606 (4.1 percent of the total population)
4.1% of 900 EV= 36.9 EV + 2 = 38.9 EV, rounded to 39 EV.
That would bring OH to 3.9% of the EC, a discrepancy of 0.2% instead of by 0.4% in the current system, thus bringing it's EV count closer to it's actual percentage of the population.

By increasing the number of electors, one "lessens the blow" of the disparity between state population and actual representation in the EC, knowing that figures like 3.5 EV are not possible. You can't split a person in half Rounding one state up means automatically that you have to round another state somewhere else DOWN. And still the small states will automatically, because of the 2 EV for the senators, have somewhat of an advantage, but less of an advantage as today.
   

If you are going to use an EC-System, then it should at least be fair.

[bonncaruso]

Hey Tender! Wasn't trying to step on your feet, didn't realize that someone had already posted on practically the same topic!

Greetings from Bonn, Germany.

[bonncaruso]

Man oh Man, forgot those silly 3 EV for the D.C.....grrr.... my calculations are therefore slightly off, but the intent is the same....

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The EC system fails epically. Popular vote now!

[Χahar]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

This argument still makes no sense.

[BushKenya]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

This argument still makes no sense.

You mean it makes no sense for the little guy to get as much of a voice as the big guy?

[Χahar]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

This argument still makes no sense.

You mean it makes no sense for the little guy to get as much of a voice as the big guy?

It makes no sense for the little guy to get a much bigger voice. Why should my vote count for less than your vote? It does right now (or would if I could vote, at least).

[Kevinstat]

The Electoral College is designed to give states with small populations more influence so that they are not too overshadowed by the larger states.  Besides, Democrats actually take in quite a few of the small states as well.  Including DC there are 13 states with 4 or fewer electoral votes and together they total 44 electoral votes (approximately 8.2% of all electoral votes).  Republicans "control" 19 of those votes and Democrats have the other 25.  So really if you want to point fingers it is the Democrats getting an unfair advantage here especially since DC isn't even a state.

However I sort of agree with your proposal in that I favor an increase in the size of the House which would automatically increase the size of the Electoral College.

4 v. 5 electoral votes (2 v. 3 Congresscritters, not counting Senators) = bad cutoff.  435 / 50 = 8.7 (counting DC's Delegate, 436 / 51 = approx. 8.55) and 538 / 51 = approx. 10.55.  The two "Senatorial" EVs each state (and  DC) gets increases a 3 CD state's share of the electoral college by 35.1% and a 4 CD state's share by 21.6%.  That's fairly significant I'd day.

Republicans generally win more states than the Democrats in Presidential elections, so the two "Senatorial" EVs each state gets in addition to its roughly proportional number of "Represenative" EVs helps them.  However, winning a large state by a small percentage of the vote (even a small number of votes) counts more than winning a small state by a landslide, and that might have been why Kerry came closer percentage-wise on a uniform popular vote swing to winning the electoral vote than winning the popular vote.

[BushKenya]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

This argument still makes no sense.

You mean it makes no sense for the little guy to get as much of a voice as the big guy?

It makes no sense for the little guy to get a much bigger voice. Why should my vote count for less than your vote? It does right now (or would if I could vote, at least).

How does your vote count less than mine? (big guy to little guy)?  Should the little guy not have a voice?  Should the little guy shut up and let the big guy run the show?  I thought all men were created equal?

I'm not griping, I'm just wondering why the big states care nothing about and never listen to the small states?  This country belongs to the small states as much as it does to the big states.

I'm going to repeat this even though it sounds like a well-worn statement from me.  The 8 or 9 million people in New York City are NO MORE IMPORTANT than the 8 or 9 people in small town Lambert, Oklahoma.

[Χahar]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

This argument still makes no sense.

You mean it makes no sense for the little guy to get as much of a voice as the big guy?

It makes no sense for the little guy to get a much bigger voice. Why should my vote count for less than your vote? It does right now (or would if I could vote, at least).

How does your vote count less than mine? (big guy to little guy)?  Should the little guy not have a voice?  Should the little guy shut up and let the big guy run the show?  I thought all men were created equal?

I'm not griping, I'm just wondering why the big states care nothing about and never listen to the small states?  This country belongs to the small states as much as it does to the big states.

I'm going to repeat this even though it sounds like a well-worn statement from me.  The 8 or 9 million people in New York City are NO MORE IMPORTANT than the 8 or 9 people in small town Lambert, Oklahoma.

I agree completely. But the Electoral College gives a greater voice as it is to a person in a small state than to a person in a large state. Look it up: smaller states have more votes per capita than big states. We must have equality, not overrepresentation for smaller states or larger states. Think of it this way. States don’t have rights, nor should they have votes. People do.

[RouterJockey]

Think of it this way. States don’t have rights, nor should they have votes. People do.

I would be inclined to disagree.

On the first point - The Bill of Rights, 10th Amendment gives the States the powers (rights?) not granted by the constitution to the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution.  Often referred to as "States Rights".

On the second point - I look at it this way.  By way of the EC, States (not individuals) vote for the offices of President and Vice President.  The number of votes (i.e. Electors) that a State gets is proportional to is Congressional representation.  This is precisely why a candidate can win the "popular vote" by only a small portion within a State, and yet recieve the entire, non-proportional allotment of the State's EC votes.  (ME and NE of course being the exception to the non-proportionality argument).

Furthermore, according to the 12th amendment, if the Presidential election is thrown to the HoR, each State gets one vote for President.

[Meeker]

The most interesting part about this thread in my opinion is the presumed candidates Tender Branson had at the time:

I agree with you Bonncaruso. I already created maps for it in a seperate topic:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=60832.0

2008 Maps showing the difference between the current system and this one:

Current System:

Rudy Giuliani - 274
Hillary Clinton - 264



EC expanded to 1.000 and relative representation:

Hillary Clinton - 505
Rudy Giuliani - 495

Oh how times have changed...

[I left.]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

Under your proposal that would make the smaller states feel even less significant and might cause more voters to stay home in those states because their vote won't matter.  It would give too much power to the big states.  If the states are already ignored during campaigns, how much more would they be ignored during the actual administration.  I think the smaller states still need a voice.  If anything I would advocate giving the smaller states a bigger voice than what they have right now, because in reality the people of those small states are just as important as the people of the big states.

This argument still makes no sense.

You mean it makes no sense for the little guy to get as much of a voice as the big guy?

You're missing the point. The system, as it currently is, disproportionally favors smaller states. In other words, someone's vote from Oklahoma has a greater effect on the electoral college than someone in New York.

Furthermore, you are implying that big cities would be the sole battlegrounds in a national popular vote, which is simply false. Candidates would not only start fighting for the cities, but also for more rural areas that seem like they could swing to a certain extent. Imagine, for example, if Obama were able to get some more votes out of Nebraska, for instance, or McCain/Romney could gain something out of Massachusetts. The electoral college blocks all of these interesting possibilities.