Comments on: The 2012 Electoral College Map Done Right: States Sized By Votes, Not Geographic Size

By: Ellen D. Janzen

Ellen D. Janzen — Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:34:00 +0000

I know who the people the electoral delegates are voting for. I just don’t know who my New York State delegate is that I am voting to cast my vote is.

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 22:47:09 +0000

Clint, California is a huge agriculture state — in fact, by far the largest in agriculture receipts. It not only feeds itself; it helps feed the nation and the world, and apparently does so despite having a net loss in federal spending.

But so I’m clear, you seem to think that states that lean Democratic are “socialist” but red states should get a pass on receiving government money because they feed the nation. That sounds pretty socialistic. Shouldn’t they be so in demand by those who want to be fed that a free market ensures they earn all they need. After all, it’s not like government is building businesses or anything, right?

As for big states small states, that’s the reason why we have two separate chambers of congress, so that big states have to compromise with small states to get legislation passed.

For electing a president, we have an outdated system that was created in part because of big state small state concerns but more because some of the founding fathers liked the idea of democracy but, you know, not too much. Like oh dear, no, we can’t let people directly elect a president. What if they aren’t smart enough?

My “ideology” is that big state vs. small state is already covered in the US Congress having two houses. It’s also that we have a popular vote for US President, just like the 17th Amendment allowed for a popular vote of US Senators. That’s a change that I think would let everyone’s vote count more, not just those in big states, because there are small states with practically no electoral votes that get ignored.

But my point behind this post wasn’t to argue that the electoral college should be abolished. I’d like to see that happen, but it’s not likely. Since it’s not likely, at the very least, we should have maps that represent the voting power of the states, not the geographic size of them.

By: Clint

Clint — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 20:51:20 +0000

Those maps are misleading as they are per capita, most of the money those smaller states are for ag and infastructure to power and feed the rest of the country…
Each state gets 2 sentators, and a number of rep proprotional to the their population so California has 53 house of reps out the 435, it seems that state has an more than enough power in congress…
But your arguement is that we shouldn’t use the electoral college because its old is a little more than ridiculous because it is just as old the rest our national election framework.
The point was to give smaller states a stronger voice because the framer’s understood that the larger states would garner too much political and economic power if we didn’t govern the way we do now.
For example, nearly 1 out of every 10 Americans live in California. So based on your ideolgy, they should get 10 senators and only 43 represenatives, decreasing their role in the House but expanding their influence in the Senate. But then smaller states would have no or shared Senators and Represenatives…
The EC also drives the two party system. A two party system keeps this country as untied as possible because at nearly all times at least 50% of voters have a common goal, if we had more parties the country would be more divided and secular like some forming republics and eureopean countries.
Point is, the EC is a good thing and besides if you want your vote to “count” more just move to a small state and quit whinning

By: Bubba

Bubba — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:06:26 +0000

Great examples…

Electoral Votes should be a choice every vote counts not Electoral driven…it could swing either way by default…

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 23:04:22 +0000

Clint, look here:
http://daggle.com/california-robert-downey-jr-states-2296

That’s federal aid to various states. The darker the color, the more they receive. ND MT WY are all as dark as you can get. NY is pretty dark; CA is pretty light.

You might also look at this:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps

California, for example, pays out more in federal tax than it gets.

But the bottom line is that ever other federal office gets elected based on a popular vote. One person; one vote. We maintain an electoral college for very old fashioned reasons.

By: Clint

Clint — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:49:50 +0000

Just a little food for thought, look at all those red states, pick and then compare their governments fiscal stability and overall economic environment to anyone of those blue states. I believe you will find the red states are handling themselves much better, ie lower unemployment lower budget deficits and a better standard living.
Yet the socialistic blue states drive our national government because of large population centers pushing their irresponsible spending and regulatory ideologies on the country as a whole.
Welfare has a place in society, but it will be our downfall if we cannot agree to reign in these costs. So we in the small states may not be as abundant as those in large, but our voices would be watered down without the EC.
In my humble opinion maybe we as country should look how ND MT WY conduct their governments more often an listen to the squatters in NY and CA less.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:14:45 +0000

We don’t have a “tyranny of the small states”. Worse, we have a “tyranny of the few states that through artifacts of the right combination of urban centers and rural counties decide the presidency”.

It’s a very bizarre system that is far from what the framers imagined. But then, our entire presidential election is far from what they imagined. We have “almost popular vote” whereas they figured that post-Washington, the House would select nearly all presidents as they failed to predict the rise of the two-party system and presumed no electoral majorities would follow.

Given that we have a de facto popular vote system that disenfranchises 80% of the country — red and blue alike — it’s time for National Popular Vote to get a more serious look. Perhaps when demographics remove another couple of red states the Republicans will get on board.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:13:18 +0000

I would also add that our representative government was created by the Founders to avoid the passions of the people…which can often be represented in “majority” voting structures. Thank goodness there are checks and balances and differences in time for members of the House and Senate. Notice how WHACKY the House is right now, a group that is elected in two-year cycles. The President (every four years) falls in the middle of it all. This is why Senators are on six-year terms. It was once explained to me that Senators temper the passions of the people due to their length of term and experience. In the old days, when coffee was too hot, the coffee would be poured into the saucer to cool, and then placed back into the coffee…thereby cooling it. This is how the interaction in congress happens between the House and the Senate.

By: Dwight D.E.

Dwight D.E. — Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:57:19 +0000

So instead of tyranny of the majority we have tyranny of the small states. A vote in Wyoming has about 5 times the weight of a vote in California. But worse than that is that if you live in a “safe” state (like WY or CA), there’s hardly any reason to vote for President at all. The EC means that candidates only pay attention to swing states. Without the EC, all votes would be equal.

By: mtx

mtx — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 21:42:16 +0000

Thankfully, we are not a country of majority rules. “Tyranny of the majority” is what our Founding Fathers sought to avoid…and did with the EC. We are a “representative democracy” operating as a “republican” form of government as stated in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.