Just a snapshot (and Repubs free to submit their own example, from their side, just as valid): My home state of New York has a 2012 population of about 19 million, or 6.19% of the nation. It now has 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has a population of about 550,000 or 0.18% of our total, but 3 electoral votes. In a true democracy, New York would have about 54 times more electoral votes. Instead it has about 9.6. So Wyoming has six times the influence of New York.
No state has fewer than three electoral votes, including, for example, liberal Vermont--but nearly all of the states that get giant boost (based on having two Senators) are red states. Note: Commenter below claims that if we did away with the College no candidate would care about contesting Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware, the Dakotas, etc. Well, they are not contesting those states NOW because of the winner-take-all College, plus they are not contesting Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and on and on.
2 comments:
I teach public administration and have to explain the EC to students every four years. It is undemocratic,but rightly so I would argue. In the same way our representative government tries to negate "tyranny of the masses" so does the electoral college. If we went to a straight popular vote, the inequality would be much worse the other way. Instead of disproportionate influence, small states would have none. Presidential candidates could spend all of there time and money in only the top 10 (at most) populous states to win election.
I think the solution is to follow the examples of Nebraska and Maine. Electors should be awarded on a district level basis, with the senate tied electors going to the state's popular vote winner. It maintains some of the small states' importance, while also representing political difference throughout states. It really would make candidates have to address the whole country in order to ensure they get the electors needed to win.
I second what Jason S. wrote. A better historical argument for the distance from local representation is the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment and the direct election of senators. It's all been downhill since then. You used to know your local statehouse politician, and they had an effect on the representation who went to DC. Now it's all media, all the time, gushing dollars. For a preview of what kind of election you can expect in your no EC system, look at a CA/TX/NY senate race. Already marginalized "flyover" states would become truly irrelevant if the guy with the most votes wins. Major markets would make elections nothing like elections and it would just be one massive ad campaign. Sounds like you could learn a thing or to from true town hall democracy, caucuses, etc.
Post a Comment