The Electoral College is brilliant if you just accept the fact that the masses are ignorant and…
Dick Cockburn
1

Except that we don’t vote for electors and expect them to make the decision as to who to elect. We vote for our candidate and d*mn well expect our state’s electors to vote for the candidate we chose. Faithless electors (and there have only been a very small few of them) are generally looked upon dimly. If a faithless elector actually changed the outcome of an election, there would be outrage.

What’s outrageous about the Electoral College isn’t that it’s a representative form of election, it’s that it really isn’t all that representative. In all but two states, it’s winner take all. Which means that if candidate A gets just 500 more votes than candidate B, candidate A gets all the electoral votes, even though the state was split pretty evenly in the voting.

The other thing that’s unfair is that voters in smaller states carry more weight than voters in larger states. For example, California has 55 electoral votes. They also have about 12.7 million voters. That winds up to each of those electoral votes representing just under 231,000 voters. Now look at Wyoming, a much smaller state. They have 3 electoral votes. They also only have about 240,000 voters. Which means that each of those electoral votes represents only about 80,000 voters. And this means that a Wyoming voter has almost three times the power as a California voter. Most people wouldn’t think that’s very fair.

Unfortunately, the only way the Electoral College can be abolished is through a constitutional amendment. And as an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify, it only takes 13 states to stop it. There are more than enough small states who, like Wyoming, aren’t about to give up their voting power advantage over bigger states.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.