By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nuvendil on 08 August 2016
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:
Nuvendil said:

1. I didn't say it was a perfect argument, just an argument.  And it's not just resources, it's everything.  Larger population states will account for a larger part of fit members of the draft if we went to war, for example.  And there's just plain more people there, so in the interests of representing the wills of the people to a degree, larger population centers should have more electors. 

2. As for large States effecting small states due to federal policies, there are two things to consider.  One is that some state some where is going to have its interests misrepresented, regardless of whether it is small states or large states.  And both are going to have words for you, whether they be that small states don't contribute what large ones do or that large states shouldn't be more important.  Also, as you pointed out, Congress brings that ballance with a House and a Senate, which hold more power than the President anyway.  A second thing to consider is that, whether by chance or design, our states most impacted by the policies you listed are also among our largest:  Texas, California, New York, Florida, etc are among the most effected and most vocal concerning things like trade and immigration (especially immigration). 

3. Also, you have to consider there are issues large, industrial States face that are not present in smaller States and thus could go unaddressed if the small States had influence disproportionate to their size, especially since there are more small states than large states.  Which is why I do think that a compromise where elector numbers are higher than small states but not necessarily directly proportionate to their state size (otherwise Wyoming, for example, would have less than 1 vote compared to California's since Wyoming 1/66 the population of California and of course, a much smaller economy and industrial pressence).  It's not a simple "small state's should have more power" situation. 

1. Sure, it is an argument, and I certainly didn't imply that you thought it was perfect. I just wanted to clarify that the total resources in control of the state is not necessarily a good reason at all for whether or not certain votes should count more. As you have agreed, there are different factors to consider.

2. By the nature of being a small state they already have less political power. California has 20% of the required electoral votes to win, while Wyoming only has 1.1%. In a system that is proportional to the national popular vote, Wyoming would have, as you noted, a fraction of an electoral college vote. Is that necessarily fair? I think it depends on whether one believes that there should be representation for regional interests. One might say lets abolish the electoral college system, but then that takes the states - and consequently regional politics - out of the scene. It seems better to keep the electoral system, but push for proportional voting (or ranked voting) tethered to the electoral college, state by state. That way the entire state gets an inproportionate say, but the say is proportional to the values of the state's population. Regional identity for the big and small states is then reconciled with accurate popularity. No state is ignored, other than by the nature of the party system and swing states (if the two party system still exists, which it probably would not.)

3. As I stated earlier, small states are still disadvantaged even with the weight given to them. California, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida have 60% of the electoral votes needed to win an election. That is five states. Small states almost never decide the federal election, but they still have a role when it comes to tie-breaking and when they band together according to regional interests. I think the current system is fair with regards to the electoral college. The United States is a federation afterall. I think we are in agreement there?

Yes, I believe we are more or less in agreement mostly. I think the US electoral is good enough, even though it could stand polishing.