Why not practically double the ELECTORAL COLLEGE to 1100?

[bonncaruso]

One of the major complaints about the EC is that extremely small states (in terms of population) are very overrepresented in the EC. The fact that every state must have at least 3 electors (2 - for the number of Senators + 1 as each state has at least one representative district) causes the numbers to not add up. A state with only one representative district of just 10,000 voters will automatically have more weight in the EC than a neighbor state with 2 representative districts, each with 500,000 voters.

For this reason, the GOP can take a huge swath out of the prairie states and end of with electoral block that essentially, has too many electors in relation to the % of the population of the US. Which means that a vote in Idaho or Montana, for instance, carries more weight than a vote in Florida, and I am sure this was not what the founding fathers intended. True, the founding fathers decided on this compromise in order to avoid the "tyranny of the majority",  but the extreme population growth of the nation and the extreme concentration of populations in certain areas is causing a very unfair imbalance in the representation.

If however, the EC is extended to 1100 electors (100 for the number of Senators and 435 x 2 for the 50 states and thirty for the territories such as Guam, Virgin Islands, etc and DC combined), then the imbalance would not be completely corrected, but at least alleviated.

I am curious to know if anyone has already made this suggestion to his or her congressman.....

Suggestions? Arguments?

[bonncaruso]

  "So really if you want to point fingers it is the Democrats getting an unfair advantage here especially since DC isn't even a state.

However I sort of agree with your proposal in that I favor an increase in the size of the House which would automatically increase the size of the Electoral College.
[/quote]

No, I am not interested in pointing fingers, but the issue is truly of fairness. Why should a vote in Florida or Pennsylvania be less worth than a vote from Utah, only because the EC has been stacked to make sure that the smaller states don't "feel" left out? They are already disproportionally represented as even the smallest of states get 2 EV regardless of population, one for each senator.

Much more fair would be by procent: State A comprises 3% of the US population and would have 3% of 900 electors (27) + 2 for it's Senators = 29 EV. By more than doubling the number of electors corresponding to electoral districts, one takes some of the sting out of the automatic skewing caused by every state automatically having 2 electors for it's senators. In this way, the small states still carry more weight per capita, but less than under the current system.

[bonncaruso]

My original calculation has a typo in it: meant 1000 EV and not 1100. Sorry for the confusion.

[bonncaruso]

easy mathematical example, based on 1000 electors, 100 of which are for the 2 Senators of each state, and 900 electors for the population of the entire US.

Census 2000: 281,421,906 in the US

Two states:

1.) Montana, population 910,651 (0.3 percent of the total population).
Montana has 3 EV, 2 for it's senators and 1 for it's district.
0.3% of 535 Electors = 1.6 EV, a discrepancy of 1.4 EV which must be made up by taking 1.4 EV away from another state.
3 EV out of 535 is 0.56% of the total electoral college, a positive discrepancy of 0.36% in terms of actual population.


2.) Ohio, population 11,155,606 (4.1 percent of the total population).
4.1 % of 535 EV = 21.9 EV, but Ohio only has 20 EV, which means it had to give up 1.9 (practically 2) EV for a smaller state. 20 EV out of 535 is 3.7% of the EC, or a negative discrepancy by 0.4% in terms of actual population.

Now, let's work it up with 1000 electors, place 100 of them to the side (representing the senators in each state) and recalculate based on 900 EV:


1.) Montana, population 910,651 (0.3 percent of the total population).
0.3% of 900 EV= 2.7 EV +2 = 4.7 EV, rounded to 5.
5 EV is 0.5% of the EC,0.2% positive disparity, less of a disparity as by the current method and still an advantage for Montana, being a small state.


2.) Ohio, population 11,155,606 (4.1 percent of the total population)
4.1% of 900 EV= 36.9 EV + 2 = 38.9 EV, rounded to 39 EV.
That would bring OH to 3.9% of the EC, a discrepancy of 0.2% instead of by 0.4% in the current system, thus bringing it's EV count closer to it's actual percentage of the population.

By increasing the number of electors, one "lessens the blow" of the disparity between state population and actual representation in the EC, knowing that figures like 3.5 EV are not possible. You can't split a person in half Rounding one state up means automatically that you have to round another state somewhere else DOWN. And still the small states will automatically, because of the 2 EV for the senators, have somewhat of an advantage, but less of an advantage as today.
   

If you are going to use an EC-System, then it should at least be fair.

[bonncaruso]

Hey Tender! Wasn't trying to step on your feet, didn't realize that someone had already posted on practically the same topic!

Greetings from Bonn, Germany.

[bonncaruso]

Man oh Man, forgot those silly 3 EV for the D.C.....grrr.... my calculations are therefore slightly off, but the intent is the same....