| the2real4mafol said: Yeah i can't believe how the number of votes vary by state. Places like Montana and the dakotas have just 3 votes compared to Texas, 39 votes and California, 55 votes, not fair at all. The popular vote is the only thing that should replace the electoral college |
Actually.... According to the 2010 census, Montana's population is under one million. It represents about 0.32% of the total US population. However, its 3 electoral votes amount to about 0.56% of all electoral votes. The electoral college actually gives less populous states such as Montana an advantage. To continue, South Dakota represents only 0.26% of the US population, and North Dakota represents only 0.21%. But both of those states still have 3 electoral votes, or the same 0.56% as Montana -- this more than doubles their pull in the election with the electoral college over a simple popular vote. It sounds like a small difference, but the 3 states together would combine for about 0.79% of the total US population, while carrying 9 total electoral votes, about 1.67% of the total.
The electoral college was created as a compromise to appease those pushing for states' rights and state power. Maybe it's not the best way to do things -- maybe a simple, total popular vote would be better. But there's no arguing that the electoral college gives more weight to the vote of a single voter in Wyoming than one in California. (California, by the way, represents 11.91% of the US population, yet carries about 10.22% of the electoral votes).
