The only way the RepubliQ can "justify" voter suppression and nullifying the results of fair elections is to repeat the tired and stupid lie that election fraud is rampant.
David can climb in that boat if he wants.
The only way the RepubliQ can "justify" voter suppression and nullifying the results of fair elections is to repeat the tired and stupid lie that election fraud is rampant.
David can climb in that boat if he wants.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Texas will never go blue.
Just like Arizona. Or Georgia.
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
OK, showing my shortage of brain cells again: Is this or is this not what the Electoral College system (which people seem to argue against, wanting only a straight count of votes to determine the winner) is supposed to adjust, as far as big population/little population states goes? As I fully admit, a don't understand any of it, and not asking to partake in an arguement. If I'm getting off topic, I'm sorry so just ignore me. Thanks.
Candy
Candy, the problem is that all but a couple of states nominate ALL of their electors to vote for whomever won the popular vote. So a candidate that wins narrowly gets the same result as if he had won 100%-0. All of the votes for the losing candidate essentially vanish.
Here's an (admittedly simplified) example of why this sucks. Imagine there are only three states, each with 10 voters. They each get one Elector. State 1, candidate A wins 10-0. State 2, Candidate B wins 6-4. State 3, Candidate B also wins 6-4.
The result is a rousing 2-1 Electoral College victory for Candidate B. But Candidate A received 60% of the popular vote: 18 to 12.
This has consequences beyond the loser of an election being declared the winner. Only states that are "battlegrounds" get any attention from either candidate. States such as Oregon and Louisiana get ignored; neither campaign wants to spend time and money in a doomed fight.
It's a roundly stupid system, an artifact of slavery, and should have been abolished long ago.
Candy, I just realized that I answered your question poorly. The Electoral College was indeed designed to give the smaller states greater representation than would be justified by their populations. A state gets one Elector for each representative in the House and one for each Senator.
So imagine a state with so small a population that it only has one Congressperson. Now imagine another state with twice that population. The first state gets 3 electors. The second state gets 4. If the EC used proportional representation, the larger state would have 6 electors, not 4.
The result is that the smaller states have a disproportionate effect on the outcome. This, like the composition of the Senate, was created at the insistence of the slave states, which were less populated than the free states.
So to use my prior example, California should have 80 times as many electors as Wyoming, based on voter population. But the actual ratio is 18:1.