Sunday, November 13, 2016

A Modest Suggestion for the Electoral College

U. S. Constitution, article II, section 1:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."


We are never going to do away with the Electoral College, because it benefits Republicans too much for them ever to allow that.  In fact, we are never going to see it change, for the same reason, but here is a sample of how unfair things are now:  Wyoming, a terminally Republican State, gets one elector for every 195,000 people.  Alaska gets one elector for every 246,000 people; North Dakota gets one for every 252,000.

At the other end of the spectrum, California, a strongly blue State, gets one elector for every 711,000 people; New York one for every 683,000.

I know that most of you are aware that the electoral college system favors small States that are largely Republican, but I bet you are surprised at how extreme this favoritism is.  In small, largely Republican States, a voter counts for three times what one does in large States.

The result of this is that the last two Republican Presidents have been placed into office despite having received a minority of the nation's votes.  I don't count the rigged re-election of Bush II, so there has not been a legitimately elected Republican President in this country since 1988.  This is an intolerably situation, which could be corrected simply by amending the Constitution to make the apportioning of electors proportional to the States' populations.  This would require expanding the number of electors, at present to about 1600; otherwise, Wyoming would get no votes at all.  In fact, as things currently stand, it would require a population of close to 600,000 for a State to earn even one electoral vote.  An alternative might be to combine some States of small population into single electoral units.  The three States listed above, Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota, would under this system get one electoral vote among them, instead of the nine they now get.

Well, like so many fair things, it ain't going to happen, but I'm just saying...




6 comments:

Infidel753 said...

There is actually a proposal which would circumvent the Electoral College and deliver future elections to the popular-vote winner without amending the Constitution. Eleven states have already signed on, including some with Republican governments. Given the size of Hillary's popular-vote margin, now is the time to push this onto the front burner.

If we fight, we might not win. If we despair and give up, we definitely won't win.

Professor Chaos said...

Most things the founding fathers set up in the Constitution are there to prevent too much democracy breaking out.

Grung_e_Gene said...

As a Prof Chaos points out the FF hated Democracy (i.e. Mob rules). As to doing away with the EC it won't happen as you point out Rural Real Murcians get more voting power.

Jerry Critter said...

The inequality of the Electoral College also exists in the House and even more so in the Senate. The fact is that some peoples vote have more power than other peoples vote. One person, one vote may apply to the election of your representative or senators, but it does not apply to the power of their vote in congress.

Dave Dubya said...

To borrow from Orwell's "Animal Farm".

"All Americans are equal, but some Americans are more equal than others."

Anonymous said...

Another alternative would be to increase the size of the House of Representatives -- there is no Constitutional magic to having 435 representatives.