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). |
You can argue that but I don't think its fair on some states, especially those who vote for one party all the time, like if you vote democrat in texas you are practically wasting your vote, even though it's a major party! I'm not denying what you said but I think it's time to get rid of the electoral college system in favour of the popular vote.
Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)
'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin
Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018
