It's an extreme example because it makes the point the most obvious, but that doesn't mean it's NOT a valid point when comparing any other two states. I'm not sure why you think it being a statistic distortion makes it unimportant, but it does result in Americans having an uneven voice in choosing the President.Originally posted by: Fern
Yes, you've chosen the most extreme example by choosing to compare the most populaced state with the least.Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Alaska has 3 electoral votes for 670,000 people. That equates to one electoral vote per 223,333 people.Originally posted by: Fern
Nope.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The electoral college isn't working. First, it weights rural votes more heavily than urban votes.
Other than the electoral college votes for each states' 2 senators, electoral college votes are based on the number of Representatives (House members).
The number of Representives are based on population. There is no advantage to rural over urban.
When the system was set up, the 2 votes for senators was added in to hep smaller states. And back then when weren't many House members the votes for senators had a much bigger eefect. As time has passed and the number of Reps has shot up the value of the senator/electoral votes has substantially diminshed. As regards electoral votes, we are very very close to a popular vote system anyway.
What's more troubling to me is the states' policy of winner-take-all electoral votes. How can a vote split like 49.5% v 50.5% result in 100% of the electoral votes for the winning candidate be fair? Fixing that doesn't require changing the electoral system at all.
California has 55 electoral votes for 36,457,000 people. That equates to one electoral vote per 662,864 people.
An Alaskan voter has 3 times as much say as a voter in California.
It is the (statistical) distortion cause by electoral college votes for senators.
The *senate* caused (statistical) distortion is ever diminishing as our population grows and more Reps (and thus electoral votes) are added.
Besides, IMO it's d@mn hard to say that CA is gettiing *hosed*, they have 55 votes to 3?
I say let the little states have their 3 votes, it's not like they count for much anyway.
If you really wanna talk about whose say in voting doesn't count - yes think of CA. Because it has the winner-take-all rule anybody but a Dem vote is meaningless.
But as you said, the real problem with our system is the winner take all system of most states. A Republican vote in CA or a Democratic vote in TX is like having no voice at all. That problem, IMHO, far eclipses the problem that folks in Wyoming get 4 times the sway on an electoral vote than folks in California do.