changes in the EV (?)

[kfseattle]

So there were a whole bunch of changes in state's electoral votes from 2000 to 2004.  How does this happen, exactly?

Doesn't a state's electoral vote equal its number of congresspeople (reps+senators)?  So if a state's EV changes, does that mean new congressional districts are added or existing ones taken away?

Thanks.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

So there were a whole bunch of changes in state's electoral votes from 2000 to 2004.  How does this happen, exactly?

Doesn't a state's electoral vote equal its number of congresspeople (reps+senators)?  So if a state's EV changes, does that mean new congressional districts are added or existing ones taken away?

Thanks.

The change occurs every 10 years after the census.  In 2002, every state redrew their congressional districts so that they all have equal populations according to the 2000 census.  Some states also gained or lost congressional seats depending on how fast their populations grew.  States that gained or lost seats also gained or lost the appropriate number of electoral votes.  

[Blazers93]

It is not fair for the Democrats how the new Electoral setup is. We lose seven Electoral votes. Before, we could have won with just one more state. Now matter which state it was. Besides, Florida was a coup last time

[KEmperor]

It is not fair for the Democrats how the new Electoral setup is. We lose seven Electoral votes. Before, we could have won with just one more state. Now matter which state it was. Besides, Florida was a coup last time

Hmm, well, we just shouldnt readjust based on the census anymore then I guess.  Because it's not fair to base a state's electoral votes on it's population....

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It is not fair for the Democrats how the new Electoral setup is. We lose seven Electoral votes. Before, we could have won with just one more state. Now matter which state it was. Besides, Florida was a coup last time

But the Democrats don't own any state's electoral votes.   The electoral college in general disadvantages the party with more concentrated, urban support because it gives disproportionate weight to less populated states.  But the reallocation done every ten years is completely non-partisan; it is just based on population changes.  

The changes in the allocation are not necessarily bad for Dems in the long run, since fast-growing, heavily Hispanic states like Arizona, Nevada, and Florida are becoming increasingly Democratic.

[minionofmidas]

It is not fair for the Democrats how the new Electoral setup is. We lose seven Electoral votes. Before, we could have won with just one more state. Now matter which state it was. Besides, Florida was a coup last time

Hmm, well, we just shouldnt readjust based on the census anymore then I guess.  Because it's not fair to base a state's electoral votes on it's population....

Yeah, right, let's use the original allocation as described in the Constitution. I don't think the people from those new states should be allowd to vote already.

[MODU]

It is not fair for the Democrats how the new Electoral setup is. We lose seven Electoral votes. Before, we could have won with just one more state. Now matter which state it was. Besides, Florida was a coup last time

But the Democrats don't own any state's electoral votes.   The electoral college in general disadvantages the party with more concentrated, urban support because it gives disproportionate weight to less populated states.  But the reallocation done every ten years is completely non-partisan; it is just based on population changes.  

The changes in the allocation are not necessarily bad for Dems in the long run, since fast-growing, heavily Hispanic states like Arizona, Nevada, and Florida are becoming increasingly Democratic.

Besides, dense urban regions, like NYC, LA, Portland, etc, tend to vote Democratic.