Nighthawk117 said:
Wrong. For example, California has a population of just under 40 million, but only has 55 electoral votes - or 727,000 per electoral vote. In comparison, my state of New Hampshire, has a population of 1.3 million, and 4 electoral votes - or 325,000 per electoral vote. Therefore, a vote in New Hampshire carries more weight than a vote in California. |
By the sounds of it, there's even more wrong with this electoral college thing than I anticipated at least as far as the presidential election is concerned.
I'm still wondering why we don't just decide the presidential race by popular vote where everyone's vote is worth exactly that: one vote as opposed to this current setup where one vote is worth 1/727,000 or 1/325,000 of an electoral vote depending on state.
fatslob-:O said:
That's not how they felt like in the past ... Smaller states fought for their right to have more representation. If nobody ever agreed to the great compromise states such as Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Georgia, the delegates from each of these states would've walked out from the constitutional convention and they would've likely each become their own sovereign nations in the end ... |
I understand that considering how states are represented in Congress but the presidential race's electoral college process currently makes little sense to me.
