Electoral College Debate

I think you’re confusing the electoral college with the Senate.There are two senators per state regardless of population, so low-population rural states have an outsized influence in the Senate.In the electoral college, each state is weighted by population. It’s unavoidably biased (just by the nature of chunking votes into seats and states) but it doesn’t consistently favor either side.

No, the point of the United States is to unite the states into a manageable single government. It is not to provide a direct action democracy to the people.We give states a base number of votes for being a state,2 , then add them based on population. This means that smaller states get a boost in power vis a vis larger ones but that larger states still matter more. This is not a bad thing.States provide the basic block upon which Government in the US rests. It is in our interests to provid

Not every state is winner-take-all either. And representation is not exactly proportional by population. You get one vote for each senator and each representative your state has in congress, which favors smaller states.

because it's representing the states themselves in addition to the population that happen to live in them. if you don't like all this you really should ask: why have states at all?

The point of the Senate and Electoral College is that states are supposed to have quite a bit of sovereignty, and so more populous states shouldn't be able to run roughshod over less populous ones. Your suggestions completely miss that point.

Yep. There are a lot of things in the US political system that give states with lower populations more representation per capita than states with greater populations, and the electoral college is one of them and perhaps the most egregious, given that we're long past the time when it made sense to fear that US presidents would prioritize their home state over the country, if that was ever a concern.The Senate is the most extreme example- every state gets two Senators. So Rhode Island and

The US is a republic of states, not a democracy. We vote by electoral college, and not directly by the population, for a reason. The electoral college is weighted using both the House (population-weighted representation) and Senate (equal state representation) so the small states don't get ignored and controlled by the large states.

The American Left:> The most obvious result of this scheme is that individual voters in small-population states tend to have more power in choosing the President than individual voters in high-population states, and that difference can skew an election.The Indian Left:[1]> enlarging the numbers of lawmakers in relation to population growth in a way penalizes those states that have achieved more in terms of slowing down their demographic growthCompletely inconsistent, self-servi

There's an interesting problem here, though, which is why the US federal government is structured as it is: there are fewer people in, say, Utah than in California. And generally people in California may have different interests than those in Utah. But as citizens of the US, Utah(ians?) deserve representation at the national level, which they just wouldn't have in a first-past-the-post popular vote. A direct popular vote would always give the advantage to candidates who represent coast

No, the votes of people in certain states being more valuable than those in others is also true of the House and Senate.In fact, the inequity in voting power produced by the Electoral College is a direct consequence of that in the structure of the House and Senate, since the latter is apportioned simply (except for DC) by adding the apportionment of House and Senate seats.