In the unlikely event that all 213 million eligible voters cast ballots, either John McCain or Barack Obama could win enough states to capture the White House with only 47.8 million strategically located votes. The presidency could be won with just 22 percent of the electorate’s support, only 16 percent of the entire population’s.
Just tell me when it’s all over.
Comments
…which explains why W is a two term chief.
I agree but…
Assuming you accept the premise of this report, then you must also conclude that the U.S. Senate is even more flawed than the Electoral College. Each U.S. Senator from California represents about 18 million people while each U.S. Senator from Wyoming represents only about 260,000 people. Or to put this in terms similar to those in the above paragraph, if it take a majority of senators to pass legislation then it is conceivable for Senate legislation to pass with the proxy approval of less than 18% of the national population.
The meaning of the term “one person, one vote” has changed over history. Historically, it originally was meant as a critique of plural voting in the UK (people being allowed to vote in multiple jurisdictions). The current meaning in the U.S. was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960’s in the context of federal and state electoral districts BUT the Supreme Court was clear that both the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate were exempt from this principle because the Constitution required a different standard for these two institutions.
Just as the structure of the U.S. bicameral legislature was a deliberate attempt to balance competing interests, the structure of the Electoral College was also a compromise between those same interests. Because of this compromise, the principle of “one person, one vote” does not apply. If we now say that the Electoral College is broken because of this then maybe the Senate is also broken.
I partially agree with this. This just means that the votes of people in less dense areas count more than the ones in more dense areas.
But on the other hand, without something like this candidates only need to focus their campaigning in the most populated areas. Also by doing this it shows they don’t care what people outside these areas care about. Although less ads could be a good thing.
Matt,
Any apparent weighting in favor of low density states is purely accidental. It’s actually weighted in favor of low population, not low density.
The District of Columbia, the area with the lowest population per electoral vote, also happens to be one with the highest population density.
And Rhode Island, the second highest density state also happens to be the one with the sixth lowest population per electoral vote.
Sorry, I meant population, not density.