| the_dengle said: 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). |
What baffle me about the US election system is the fact that the minority of the votes inside a state doesn't count. I mean if you live in a state that has strong republican or democrat roots you can very well save yourself the trouble of going to vote. Maybe that's the reason there is an high abstention rate (by european standards I mean).
Anyway congrats to president Obama, the other one really seemed like a douche, just trying to please people while only thinking about "his" people.
