States Ranked in Order of Population and Number of Electoral Votes

[WIHS2006]

Originally Posted by Dole-McCain Republican

I sincerely apologize for this delayed response, as I did not have an opportunity to post until now.

This is a fascinating analysis, Unsettomati. I never knew that VA was once the most populous state.

Upon doing some additional research, 1962 was the year when CA surpassed NY to become #1 in population. NY remained #2 until 1994, when it was surpassed by TX. And it was only in 2014 when FL overtook NY in population.

Thanks for sharing these figures. The main reason why smaller states benefit as a result of the electoral college is because the number of electoral votes allotted to each state is equal to its number of senators plus its number of representatives. Since each state--regardless of population--elects two senators, states which have fewer representatives (and hence have less population) stand to benefit the most from this formula. For instance, if a state's number of electoral votes were only equal to the number of Congressmen allotted to it, CA would still have 53 electoral votes while WY would have only 1 electoral vote. By "bumping up" these numbers by 2, CA gets 55 electoral votes (an increase of just 3.8%) while WY gets 3 electoral votes (an increase of 200%).

Because smaller states benefit much more from the Electoral College, I think that a fairer way to do things would be to simply have each state's electoral votes be equal to just the number of Congressman that it elects. IMO, this would be a good compromise and between the current formula (for determining each state's electoral votes) and eliminating the Electoral College altogether (and electing the president based solely on the popular vote). I am not in favor of the complete elimination of the Electoral College, because were that to occur, small states like IA, NH, & NV would be totally ignored in presidential elections.

I generally support the EC for the same reason, however I also think that abolishing the EC would effectively force the Republicans to become more mainstream and put less focus on catering to social conservatives and White racial resentment.

[katzpaw]

Good luck getting enough states to agree to the required Constitutional Amendment to revise the electoral college process. It was set up this way to protect the influence of the smaller states.

[Dole-McCain Republican]

Originally Posted by katzpaw

Good luck getting enough states to agree to the required Constitutional Amendment to revise the electoral college process. It was set up this way to protect the influence of the smaller states.

I agree that there is virtually zero chance of the electoral college being amended or scrapped, because three-quarters of the states would never agree to ratify such a Constitutional Amendment (for the aforementioned reason that such a change would penalize the smaller states).

Interestingly, if my "compromise" proposal (whereby each state's electoral votes equaled its number of House members) was in effect in 2000, Gore would have defeated Bush. As it stands right now, there are 538 total electoral votes; a majority--or 270--are needed in order to win. If this "new" system were adopted, a total of 436 EVs would be available, and a majority would be reached if a candidate won 219.

Now, back in 2000, Bush won 271 EVs to Gore's 267. (I realize that Gore only won 266 EVs, because one elector from DC abstained from voting. However, to avoid unnecessarily complicating matters, I am awarding Gore 267 EVs.) In terms of the number of states carried, Bush won 30 states while Gore won 20 (plus DC). If you subtract the number 60 (which is equal to the 30 states Bush won times the two senators from each state that are included in the number of EVs awarded) from 271, Bush's revised total is 211 EVs. By performing a similar calculation, you would subtract 42 from 267 to arrive at Gore's revised total of 225 EVs.

I apologize if my explanation was hard to follow. However, the main point that I am trying to make is that a "split decision" (in which one candidate wins the electoral vote while the other wins the popular vote) would be much less likely to occur if each state's electoral votes were equal to its representation in the House.