Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

csziggy

(34,189 posts)
15. They are not - states with larger populations have more electoral votes
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 02:08 AM
Nov 2016

The problem is that most states have decided that their electoral votes are winner take all. If the electoral votes were divided in the same ratio as the votes each candidate receives it would make a tremendous difference. By my rough calculations, that would have given Clinton 279 to Trump's 258 but obviously my math is not quite right, probably thrown off by McMullen's large percentage in Utah the smaller votes for Johnson and Stein in other states.

A major problem with trying to set proportional division of each state's electoral votes is that the margins are just too tight to divide them up properly. the closer the vote, the harder it is to decide who should get which odd electoral votes - and third party candidates seldom get a single one.

Perhaps a more even division of population in congressional districts so that every district in every state represents a nearly equal number of people and assigning one electoral vote to each precinct would work better - and the electors would be bound to cast their vote for president for the person who won in the precinct they represent. But that would still leave out third party candidates altogether.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Voice is nowhere near proportional to population. LisaL Nov 2016 #1
I think that's what he said dumbcat Nov 2016 #2
You don't see the non-sequitur in this? Dem2 Nov 2016 #12
The difference is hardly earth shattering JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #17
In NH, based on electoral college and swing state status, Dem2 Nov 2016 #21
You are right. You got the power. tinrobot Nov 2016 #22
Yep, we can't go tinkering with the Constitution. William769 Nov 2016 #25
We have changed the constitution when we needed to. JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #26
I'm sorry but a state with 30 million shouldn't be reduced to the same voice as 1 million. onecaliberal Nov 2016 #3
Should a state with only 2 million Abq_Sarah Nov 2016 #4
They should have a voice that represents their 2 million not have 3.5 times the voice of the 30 onecaliberal Nov 2016 #5
In other words, no voice Abq_Sarah Nov 2016 #6
Or how about just one person one vote? tinrobot Nov 2016 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author onecaliberal Nov 2016 #19
Please explain that for me. JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #10
Wyoming has 600,000 people, California has 38 million. tinrobot Nov 2016 #23
They are not - states with larger populations have more electoral votes csziggy Nov 2016 #15
We're deciding elections based on lines drawn on a map centuries ago. tinrobot Nov 2016 #8
So, are you saying that our legislature is outmoded too? JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #9
Not no voice. But they are a minority. Liberal In Texas Nov 2016 #11
And since national governance is a consensus of states... JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #14
This is simply is about one person one vote tinrobot Nov 2016 #24
"Those lines still determine the makeup of our current government." JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #13
The Congressional districts aren't all that proportional JonLP24 Nov 2016 #16
And that has nothing whatever to do with the Electoral College. nt JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #18
I was addressing this line JonLP24 Nov 2016 #20
It's still irrelevant. JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #28
The election is the product of the process. JayhawkSD Nov 2016 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thoughts on the Electoral...»Reply #15