Electoral College creates 2 million popular vote disadvantage for dems

[ringmastery]

http://www.dailynewsonline.com/founder_ball_tom/2004_02_09_archive_article.php#107629695563909378

In general Republican leaning states require a scandalously smaller amount of popular votes to give their preferred candidate an electoral vote compared to Democratic leaning states. To illustrate, let's compare the make-up of the 25 most "Republican" states to the 25 most "Democratic" states (State classification is based on traditional voting records). Each electoral vote from an average Democratic leaning state is represented by 536,571 citizens. In the average Republican leaning state, however, each electoral vote is represented by only 501,699 citizens. This is a 7% disadvantage for Democrats. Is it any surprise that a Republican loser replaced the people's choice for president? This isn't Democracy. This is nonsense.

Wyoming: Electoral Powerhouse
As a specific example, let's take a look at Wyoming and California. In national elections each individual in the state of Wyoming has FOUR times the electoral power of individuals in California. Why? You guessed it. The Electoral College. In Wyoming, each electoral vote is represented by only 164,594 people. In California, you'll have to amass 627,253 members of the populace to give their preferred candidate a single electoral vote. In what society could that possibly be fair? The bottom line is that the principle rationale behind the Electoral College's creation is no longer valid. So, although the founding fathers may have had valid reasons for instituting this pseudo-democratic method of choosing our nation's leader, If they were alive today, they would certainly call for its abolishment.

[Walt Starr]

1. The Electoral College is one of many reasons why the system

is broken.

And, dare I say, unfixable.

[scottxyz]

2. Excellent post! Quantify the corruption!

n/t

[truhavoc]

3. I Agree

There is no reason any longer to support the electoral college. The only problem is going to be getting a constitutional amendment to change it. Like you pointed out, the republicans have a direct reason to keep it in play, so we would have to not only gain back both the house and the senate, but somehow play this off to the smaller populated states. They probably like the fact that their vote is worth more than a vote in CA.

[burrowowl]

5. Welcome to DU

The electorial college needs serious reform or to be aborogated.

[scottxyz]

4. THIS IS A 7% DISADVANTAGE FOR THE DEMOCRATS

From the article:

Each electoral vote from an average Democratic leaning state is represented by 536,571 citizens. In the average Republican leaning state, however, each electoral vote is represented by only 501,699 citizens. This is a 7% disadvantage for Democrats.

http://www.dailynewsonline.com/founder_ball_tom/2004_02_09_archive_article.php#107629695563909378

This is absolutely AMAZING.

[scottxyz]

6. Push-Poll question:

(1) If you could see ONE amendment made to the Constitution, which would you prefer:

- Ban gay marriage. (To preserve the sanctity of heterosexual marriage.)

- Eliminate the Electoral College. (To ensure a level playing field among all Presidential candidates.)

[mark414]

8. um...

i think that one's a no brainer...

sanctity of marriage? i didn't hear the repubs screaming when britney spears took part in the "sanctity of marriage."

[spooky3]

7. Add to that, the District of Col. can't vote for Senate or House

yet has a population of more than 500000. Since it would almost certainly go Democratic, there are more disadvantages for the Dems.

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. And what have Kerry, Edwards, and DK done since 2000 to fix this?

Absolutley nothing.

[spooky3]

14. given the Dems have been in the minority for most of that

time, and barely above it for the rest, what do you think the odds are that a constitutional amendment would pass?

[kenny blankenship]

10. I worked it out myself and found that it was worse than that!

The electoral college "booster seat" as I call it amounts to the population of a state like Tennessee or Washington -- automatically 'donated', as it were, to the republicans because they are popular in sparsely populated states.

We talk about half a million more popular votes for Gore than Bush.
BUT we vote by states; that's the basic assumption of the electoral college.

WHen you add the populations of the states by candidate, (Gore 140,795,000 -over Bush 135,831,000 ) Gore states amount to something like 5 million more people than the population of the Bush states.

That was the real margin of victory for Gore. Not half a million but 5 million.

[AndyTiedye]

11. Now we see why * is smirking so much.

29% Bushbot base
7% Electoral College Advantage
16% Diebold (e.g. former Sen. Cleland's race)
===
52% and Bush* "wins" again

Now we see why he is smirking so much. He can't lose,
even if the real vote is a 71-29 landslide.
:(:(:(:(:(:(:(

[kodi]

12. explain why you want a popularly elected executive branch in a republic

what you call for is a truly democratically elected president who wields great power in a federal democratic republic.

one branch of the government is already elected by popular vote as is fitting democratic principles.

however, the nature of the government also recognizes the rights of the participating states as members of this federation.

where is the power of the member states in this government with apportionment by state, unaffected by population?

we find it in the senate, and we find it in the electorial college and in this latter case population, viz., popular, democratic will does play a significant roll.

yet, both usurp the popular, democratic principles of one person, one vote.

so, if one calls for abolition of the electorial college, why not the senate?

[scottxyz]

13. Fine with me

I think the Internet could replace Congress very easily someday.

A simple bulletin-board (or a Sims game) could easily come up with better-quality legislation than Congress, if some programmers rolled up their sleeves.

Then we can send all the pork-barrel Congresspeople home.

Grover Norquist better be careful what he wishes for (drowning the Federal government). The Internet might just do him that favor someday.

[ramapo]

15. Reapportionment Hurts too

Electoral votes have moved South since 2000.

[nancyharris]

16. As long as you’re discussing representative injustice

Why should Vermont (or any other small population state) have the same number of senators as California? The number of people each California senator represents is vastly greater than the number of people each Vermont senator represents.

[Tansy_Gold]

17. Why I support the electoral college in all its unfairness.

On the one hand, the electoral college does look unfair. But in another way, it is extremely fair. And I believe that in their often flawed wisdom, the founding fathers (there were no mothers in that bunch) actually got something correct.

If we were to adopt a constitutional amendment doing away with the electoral college and deciding the presidency solely on the popular vote, the candidates would turn their attention on the big cities and ignore the small communities and the rural interests in order to get votes. States like California, New York, Florida, Texas, would get the bulk of the campaigning, and their issues would become "national" issues. Who would care about coal bed methane gas and what it's doing to the ranchers in Wyoming? Ain't no voters in Wyoming worth paying attention to. Or who would care about small farm hog producers in Iowa or fishermen in Maine or Native Americans dealing with the results of uranium mining in New Mexico?

One of the great strengths of the Constitution is that it balances out the imbalances and protects the weak, the minorities, the voiceless. Is it perfect? No. It has its flaws and its weak points. But even some 230 years ago, the boys in Philadelphia and New York and Boston were held in check by those stubborn southern plantation owners, and they acceded because they knew that the majority does not have the right to tyrannize the minority.

That's why we have "supermajority" votes needed to amend the constitution, not just 50% = 1. Amending the constitution ought to be a very serious undertaking, and it had better only be done when the big majority of the people in the biggest majority of the states approve it AFTER a big majority in congress have already approved it.

And yes, it means that there are some distinct advantages for one party to win in certain small states and take home the electoral votes. But you know what? Ain't nobody stoppin' the other party from campaignin' like hell in those same little states!

Tansy Gold, defender of the constitution

[kodi]

18. please articulate a philosophical basis for suport of the constitution

instead of the affects of its alteration.

one wins no argument explaining what is wrong with the alternatives of a system unless one can defend the virtues of the present system.

[Tansy_Gold]

20. I believe I just did

The electoral college keeps the small states from being steamrollered all the time by the big ones. Avoids a tyranny of the majority.

As the poster below said, it cuts both ways.

[kodi]

23. and i believe you have not,

your thesis shows little understanding of the place of states rights in a federalist form of government.

your examples have it upside down by propounding the affects of a system of government as its cause.

federalism is not a form of government instituted to prevent majority rule but one founded to ensure the inherent rights of the participating member states.

[windansea]

21. immigration trends = 1 virtue of present system

[mondo joe]

22. Only if some assumptions are true

"One of the great strengths of the Constitution is that it balances out the imbalances and protects the weak, the minorities, the voiceless. Is it perfect? No. It has its flaws and its weak points. But even some 230 years ago, the boys in Philadelphia and New York and Boston were held in check by those stubborn southern plantation owners, and they acceded because they knew that the majority does not have the right to tyrannize the minority."

This assumes that everyone in a state has shared interests. And 230 years ago that might have been more true - but is it true today?

I think that whether I lived in Washington State, Wisconsin or New York my priorities would be the same. And as it stands, I'm a minority who isn't protected one whit by thr electoral system.

[mohc]

19. Electoral college cuts both ways

While the main intrinsic effect of the EC is to give more power to smaller states via apportionment based on Representatives and Senators, in practice it helps large states much more. Almost every state uses a winner-take-all system to award electors, and although this is not a requirement of the EC, the large states have decided to use it because of the advantage it gives them. If someone wins California by 1 vote, and another candidate wins Wyoming by 100,000 votes, the person winning CA gets far more electors with fewer votes. The WTA system basically makes the smaller states pointless, which is why there is very little campaigning there.

Small states will never give up the extra votes, large states will never give up WTA, and the states in between get a little of both.