I've been a supporter of nixing the electoral college but recently I have been doing some digging and I may have totally misunderstood the reason for it and now I'm not so sure about my position anymore. I think a lot of the problem with the electoral college stems from misinformation and misunderstanding. Yours truly included. I wish I could find information in laymen's terms direct and to the point to explain what value the electoral college has and how it works to protect the average citizen.
I posted this in a different thread.
Actually, if the truth be told, it is the rural mid-western states that are actually dis-proportionally weighted in their favor when it comes to the electoral college. The number of electoral college votes each state gets is based upon its congressional representation. States like Wyoming, North and South Dakota and so on that only get three electoral college votes because they each have two senators and one congressmen. Each state by the constitution is guaranteed two senators and one congressmen. Senators are not proportioned by the population as is the house of representatives. If the electoral college was actually based upon the proportioned state representation, then those states would only get one vote.
If we compare a state like California versus Wyoming, you would find Ca has 55 votes and Wy has 3. Proportion them strictly on population representation, Ca would get 53 votes and Wy would only get one vote. Adding back in the two votes delegated to the state not based upon the population representation, then you would find the weighted vote applied to California is only 1.04, or in other words 4%, But when we look at the weighted vote applied to states like Wyoming, you find their weight vote to be 3.00, or in other words, 300% greater than the standard popular vote would grant them. The small mid-western states with only 3 electoral college votes hold a far greater disproportional influence over the election results, as the electoral college in no way represents the true popular vote of each state. That is why Hillary is able to win nearly 400,000 more popular votes, but still lose the electoral college.
When the vote of a Californian is only weighted at 4%, while the vote of someone from Wyoming is weighted a 300%, is that really fair to our democracy?
If we take away the electoral college, the elections would change dramatically. The Electoral college has given us a system where the candidates can fight over a handful of swings while ignoring the rest of the country except when it comes time for fundraising. Take away the electoral college, or at least take away the two votes from each state that are not apportioned to the population, then maybe those who wish to lead us would be forced to address all the states and the peoples in those states, and the need of the peoples of those states, rather than just the needs or concerns of those few state they are trying to win.
I am still in favor of the electoral college. I just think they need to drop the two automatic votes to each state. That will maintain the original intent in forming the college in the first place with out it being unfairly weighted.
