|
> The Electoral College doesn't 'reduce the weight of votes coming from inner-cities and urban areas'; it allocates votes to states in roughly proportion to population. Um, that depends on what you mean by "roughly proportional": + Each state, no matter how low the population, gets a minimum of three votes in the Electoral College (one per House member and senator). + House representation increases by population, but Senate representation is capped at two, no matter how large the population. + As a result: "Each vote cast in Wyoming is worth 3.6 as much as the same vote cast in California. How can that be, you might ask? It’s easy to see, when you do the math. Although Wyoming had a population in the last census of only 563,767, it gets 3 votes in the Electoral College based on its two Senators and one Congressman. California has 55 electoral votes. That sounds like a lot more, but it isn’t when you consider the size of the state. The population of California in the last census was 37,254,503, and that means that the electoral votes per capita in California are a lot less. To put it another way, the three electors in Wyoming represent an average of 187,923 residents each. The 55 electors in California represent an average of 677,355 each, and that’s a disparity of 3.6 to 1." [0]. [0] E.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-petrocelli/its-time-to... |