Trumpscum Won Because An Electoral Vote In Wyoming Is Worth 3 Times As Much As California

[TaterBake]

To hell with democracy.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fairvote/pages/199/attachments/original/1450119297/2008votersperelector.pdf?1450119297

[DetlefK]

1. Actually, political scientists identified the US as a "civil oligarchy". It's not a democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#United_States



Don't worry. The "German Democratic Republic" (East-Germany) wasn't democratic either. It was hardcore-communist.

[lake loon]

4. Then let's make it one.

That'd be nice.

[beachbum bob]

2. trump won because not enough people voted for hillary in Wi, Ohio, PA and Michigan

too many democrats sat on their asses....or voted for 3rd party.....so we get what we get

[lake loon]

3. Our system is a FRAUD.

To hell with any "Founding Fathers" horseshit. Second place don't finish first.

[citood]

5. How much is each vote worth

I've seen numbers anywhere between 3 and 7 thrown out to describe the disparity between various states. So I decided to calculate it.

CA - 5,589,936 for 55 EV, or 101,635 people per EV

WY - 174,248 for 3 EV, or 58,082 per EV

Ratio: 1.75 to 1

I think populous states where Clinton won with a narrower margin would yield a higher ratio. As far as I can tell, MA yields the highest for Clinton - 178k per EV. By quirk, the highest number of people per EV is the Maine split EV that went Trump - its worth 334k people.

Ratio WY vs MA - 3.0 to 1

Ration WY to Main (1) 5.75 to 1

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. It's based on population

not number of voters.

1 CA EC vote = ~698,000 people
1 WY EC vote = ~195,000 people

[citood]

10. For the purpose of my exercise, I used voters

I think this more accurately answers the question of how much more a vote in WY, for example, was worth when compared to another state like California.

In particular, in addition to capturing the mathematical problems with population distribution vs EV allocation, this method also captures disparities that rise out of vote distribution in one state - i.e., your vote counts less in places with a large margin of victory than it does in closer races. Voter turnout by state also impacts this.

[SFnomad]

14. Re: more accurately

The EC number is based on population, not voters. Your calculation is not "more accurate" ... it's a redefinition.

[citood]

17. Let me re-explain

Here are a list of things that effect how much your vote is worth:

1. State population
2. State voter participation
3. Margin of victory in your state

You are interested in Item #1. I'm fine with that.

I am interested in all 3 items, all of which would go away in a national popular vote scenario. Are you fine with that?

Let me throw another wrench into the notion that the ratio is dependent on census population alone. The population numbers used for allocation of house seats, and thus the electoral college count ALL people:

Citizens
Felons who have lost their civil right to vote
legal immigrants
undocumented immigrants
persons under 18

Everybody counts in the population tally, but differing demographics among states could cause a large variation in the differential between population vs eligible voters. Then, if you really want to get particular, the population distribution in 2015 is very likely different than it was in 2010, when the last census was taken. Some population numbers used up thread were 2015 numbers - not 2010 census. So if you really want to use population alone, you have to formulate a way to account for the differential in population growth among states.

So back to my original math. If I wanted to say 'A voter in WY was counted a x many voters in CA, in the 2016 election', what would be the most definitive way to do it? I think the most definitive, defensible, calculable number would be as I have done it...being very open about exactly how that number was derived.

[SFnomad]

18. It doesn't matter how many times you "re-explain" it

Your explanation is a redefinition

[citood]

20. Question

True or False:

A vote in Wyoming in the 2016 election counted as much as 7 votes in California.

[SFnomad]

23. I'm not going to play your games ... sorry.

The EC count is based on population, not how many people vote.

[citood]

24. Games?

I've tried to be polite....have a discussion.

Why can't you?

[SFnomad]

25. Buh-bye n/t

[citood]

26. That strategy won't get you a good grade in debate class.

[zipplewrath]

6. Yes

This whole mess is a string of decisions by people who didn't understand the whole system.

The EC was created for several reasons, whose motives aren't all pure. None the less it held two basic concepts underpinning it. 1) The president should be representative of the "whole" nation, not just the more populous regions. So it attempted to ensure that the support would be "distributed" across the country. And 2) that we should have our votes pass through electors in case there was the need to moderate the will of the rabble so to speak.

Unfortunately several subsequent changes have destroyed all of that.

When we limited the House to 535 members, we started the process by which some states have way more representation than others. This is especially true in the EC because of the two senator rule. Since the House is no longer "equally" distributed by population as intended, the minority has way more power than ever expected or intended.

When various states started handcuffing their electors to the results of their state elections, it caused any aspect of "moderation of the rabble" to disappear.

The quickest, and I suggest most likely modification that could be made is to "disconnect" the EC from the congressional representation. In essence, return to the originally intended distribution of representation for the EC. Take the smallest state and they get one EC vote ( or 3 or whatever). Then, based upon population, each state gets a proportionally larger number of electors. We may end up with a total of 2500 electors or whatever, but they will be far more closely aligned with the population than what we have now. Yet, it will also be true that ultimately, one will have to have a truly national support to win. You can just rack up a lot of votes on both coasts and cruise to a victory. You'll need to "win" some states in the middle.

This could be further modified to suggest that the EC votes be divided within states based upon the results in that state. Again, it would help ensure that the EC vote and the popular vote was held more closely. That does tend a bit to undermine the "national" support, but only a bit. What it does do it tend to influence the distribution less on a state level, and more on a population density level. So states that are otherwise "strong red" would lose an EC vote or two because of large urban population centers. In reality, some of the converse would be true as well. The dems would probably lose a significant number of EC votes in California, despite "winning" the state.

[KittyWampus]

7. Californians are only worth a fraction of someone in Wyoming? That sounds like UNEQUAL Protection

[Lurks Often]

9. DU would love the EC if the results had been reversed

If Trump had won the popular vote and lost to Clinton in the EC, people here would be screaming how great and wise the Founding Fathers were when they thought up the Electoral College.

[LanternWaste]

12. I'd pretend your allegation valid also if it validated my bias...

I'd pretend your allegation valid also if it validated my bias... as long as we both realize that unsupported allegations and empty prophecies are the best we have to offer on this,.

[Bettie]

28. Actually, my husband and I were discussing this before the election

and how difficult it would be to claim a real win should the EC be in favor of Clinton and Orange Hitler get the popular vote.

I suspect that a lot of us would be conflicted about that in a normal year, but this year, with Twittler it is far, far worse than with any garden variety Republican.

[TheFrenchRazor]

29. speak for yourself. nt

[Joe941]

11. We aren't a democracy.

[Kilgore]

27. No, you made a common mistake.

We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy

http://madisonproject.com/2013/09/we-the-people-a-constitutional-republic-not-a-democracy/

[colsohlibgal]

13. It Is Ridiculous

The only political race anywhere where the candidate with the most votes can "lose".

The Dems should have gone after it big time after 2000. But of course they did not. Typical.

[TheFrenchRazor]

30. yep. get used to bending over. nt

[True_Blue]

15. The entire population of Wyoming is only slightly over 500,000

And only 20% are registered Dems. Too bad it's such a godforsaken state to live in, because it would easily turn blue if only 500,000 Dems moved there. California could easily spare that and still be a solid blue state.

I never thought it was fair either that California only has 2 Senators. Wyoming has more representation per capita than California does.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Yeah. Wyoming's the problem. That's the ticket.

It was crazy how much time the candidates spent there. And ND. And Alaska. And SD.

You do realize that without the EC, nobody gives a shit about anything but about 8-10 population centers in the country, right?

[citood]

19. There is a middle ground, which most people are unaware of

The electoral college (and congress) used to grow. States didn't lose seats unless the population actually dropped (so the loss of seats seen on NY for something like the last 7 census would not have happened).

But in 1929 the number was capped (with some exceptions later for AK, HI and DC).

This affected the differential in representation profoundly...undoing 1929 would land us somewhere in the middle between our current system and a nationwide popular vote.

[HoneyBadger]

22. Population centers

What is "funny" is that states have population centers and the rest of the state is dead. I spent the year in a sleepy college town in Clinton county, NY, notable only as the home to a mall frequented by Canadians. Police work consists of lost dogs and missing wallets. Ben Stiller just visited town and drank at my local bar and it was news for a week. Hillary never came anywhere near. Trump had one rally, with long lines (people parked several miles away and walked in) and moderate local protesting (if there were 30 protesters, I would be shocked.) He actually had a second rally scheduled, but finally realized that it was not a good use of resources.

Hillary got 15,059 votes and Trump got 14,449 in the county.

Hillary of course crushed NY.

I would hate for candidates to only care about population centers.

[TheFrenchRazor]

31. so what? PEOPLE count, not square miles. I say that as someone who lives in SD. nt

[Jim Lane]

32. The Electoral College empowers swing states, not suburban and rural areas

As it is, the candidates care a great deal about Philadelphia and Miami. By contrast, they generally ignore New York City and Houston except for fundraising.

They also go outside those big population centers in the swing states, but, again, ignore such suburban and rural areas in the solidly red or blue states.

In a national popular vote, no one would win by campaigning only in "8-10 population centers". Per the 2010 census, the ten most populous Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (which are fairly broad geographically) had a total population of about 81 million, out of a national population of 308.7 million.

ETA: I took the SMSA figures from this Wikipedia article -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census#Metropolitan_rankings

[uponit7771]

21. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS A RACIST COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38373-slavery-democracy-and-the-racialized-roots-of-the-electoral-college

[iluvtennis]

33. AMEN! nt

[pansypoo53219]

34. 2 dakotas. make 3 californis, but then there will be 5 texases.

divide POPULATION and MORE electors. or can it. they did NOT do their duty.