The Electoral College does not benefit small states
April 18th, 2007
FairVote Staff
In the past, FairVote filed posts under this generic contributor account.
Time and again, the National Popular Vote plan runs afoul of critics who think big cities will dominate direct presidential elections.
FairVote’s director Rob Richie tackles that myth with a letter to the NY Times:
The current system does not benefit small-population states, however. While such states have fewer people per electoral vote than big states, there’s a reason for the conventional wisdom that the 2004 election came down to winning two of the big battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.
A gain of 5,000 votes in New Mexico might help swing five electoral votes in your favor. But that exact same vote gain in Florida could swing 25 electoral votes. When weighing where to focus resources, campaigns gravitate to the big swing states.
Other posts by FairVote Staff
- The Electoral College does not benefit small states - April 18th, 2007
- Winter e-news - February 22nd, 2007
- First Takoma Park IRV Election: Exit Poll - January 31st, 2007
- Rob at Kent State - January 8th, 2007
- Fierce testimonials at the Yes on Three blog - October 20th, 2006
- Elect-a-Date! - September 20th, 2006
- Rob Richie talks redistricting on air - September 5th, 2006
- National Popular Vote on... Facebook! - September 5th, 2006
- FairVote at APSA - August 29th, 2006
- FairVote launches Internet Action Team - July 30th, 2006
April 19th, 2007 at 8:55 am
The small states are indeed the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus in the Electoral College. Small states are almost invariably non-competitive in presidential election. Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only†20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Saying the small states are disadvantaged is like saying a ton of dog food is more expensive than an ounce of caviar. It’s true but it misses the point a little bit. When you have half a million people of course you have less political power than a state of 20 million, but a single person in a small state has nearly 4 times as much voting power.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:04 am
A person in a small state has no power if no candidate cares what they think or lifts a finger to secure their vote. That’s the fundamental problem with the current Electoral College system — one our founders would not have tolerated most states being irrelevant to presidential elections.