Why would they necessarily want to push that number higher? There’s no motivation for them to shoot for any arbitrary number, just “as high as possible.” However, assuming candidate A has a strong lead elsewhere, they may presume that they can afford to let candidate B take a lead in Wyoming if it would be a tough battleground.
I say this as someone who generally disagrees with the nature of the EC and supports a more direct democracy, but I can’t convince myself that foregoing the regional aspects of the EC is a good thing.
In an election where there’s a wide divide in the popular vote, the candidate in the lead wouldn’t necessarily have an interest in Wyoming’s spread, but when the popular vote is close (as it often is), then places like Wyoming are going to be of interest, because while a Republican might not be able to shake a few thousand votes loose in California, but they almost certainly could in a place like Wyoming.
Per capita, Wyoming get’s nearly four times as much representation in the elecoral collete as California, Florida, New York or Texas (About .6 votes per 100,000 people vs. about 0.15).
This is not so. If every vote matters, no matter where it is cast, then there is an incentive for candidates to seek votes everywhere. You use Wyoming as an example but there is no competition for the votes of Wyomingites because everyone knows the state’s electoral votes will go Republican. This was known long before candidates set their agenda or parties adopted their platforms. Because they don’t live in a swing state, Wyomingites are ignored. THAT is the effect of the EC.
Now, certainly there are state issues that do get highlighted by the EC. but only if they concern swing states. (Steel tariffs in 2000 come to mind: Ohio-West Virginia-Pennsylvania.) What is the benefit to promoting the interests of those states over those of the rest of the nation?
Without the EC, WY can rely on the Feds accommodating their wishes only if they coincidentally happen to match the large population centers, where most of the votes are. If Wyoming’s wishes contrast with California and New York, tough shit for them. No one will care, and ain’t no one going to spend any time or money worrying about them. The EC at least minimizes this.
Remember 2000? Gore won the popular vote, but lost the EC vote. The “majority” can be broken down in a number of different ways. Nor is the EC any protection against an “idiot majority.” However, by eliminating the EC, you rid yourself of the divisive arguments which crop up in such situations, thus better enabling folks to focus on the real issues.
Not with only three electorial votes, they don’t. In 2004, Cheney became the first candidate for national office to campaign in Hawaii, IIRC. Hawaii has only 1 more electorial vote than WY does.
No, it doesn’t. Nobody gives a shit about Wyoming anyway every four years. The only states that matter in presidential races are the ones that could go either way. New York and California are completely ignored by both people on each ticket, except for fundraising; nobody holds rallies there.
We are talking about local issues. Since they don’t affect the large population centers there is no reason people there need be opposed. On issues that affect everyone then everyone should have an equal say in who will handle them, right?
Florida was a problem in 2000 because their electoral laws were a mess. That’s hardly unusual with the current hodgepodge of often obscure and vague state and local election laws the US has. If we had efficient nationwide standards there would be no reason to fear a nationwide recount.
Its off topic but this is incorrect. Individual states were bicameral before 1787 and indeed the Virginia Plan called for bicameralism with proportional representation in both houses. This had been agreed to in the constitutional convention before being overriden by the Connecticut Compromise. Though they are not pertinent here, there are other reasons why Congress is bicameral.
As a fan of U.S. history, I’d be interested in hearing the other reasons. It seems to me, though, that my original point stands. As the Connecticut Compromise was inducted into the Constitution, doesn’t this show that the bicameral, dual-equal-representation and proportional-representation system we have was a result of the fears of the small states of being inconsequential and the desire of the large states to have a representative voice?
If you started a thread on bicameralism I would be willing to offer details as well as argue against that arrangement. Or for a book recommendation, I would suggest The Upper House in Revolutionary America by Jackson Turner Main.
I would say that your point is correct. However, it doesn’t answer Grumman’s questions. He is asking why states should matter and not why they do.
I am not a fan of the idea that people who happen to live in smaller States deserve to be over-represented, but I think this is the question that advocates of abolition have to answer.
If I’m reading it correctly, then you’re saying that if Ohio (which has 20 electoral votes) was split 60/40 in an election then the majority candidate would get 12 votes and the minority 8 votes. I think this is the best suggestion.
With the exception of the 2000 election the EC has worked OK, not well but OK.
If you want to change the poltical landscape you’d need to change the Senate to proportional representation. It’s simply ludicrous that California and Wyoming have two senators each.
But the equal representation does explain the undue influence of agriculture and mining influence in the Senate. Because states were not really carved to any future political boundary, at minimum we should start to divide the huge land states with huge populations, like Texas and California into more states, to give them more senators and make their sizes similar to eastern states