# Electoral College v. Popular Vote - How Big Is Too Big? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 10, 2020, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262 "2020-09-10T14:14:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2020, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/221 "2020-09-17T19:27:01Z")
“As implemented” may be a keyword here - how much better does it get if states went to proportional EC awarding instead of winner-take all? (by state, not talking about the national popular vote compact floating around). That’s in the purview of individual states, I think? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2020, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/222 "2020-09-17T20:30:13Z")
I’d say that they made a mistake in having a unitary executive, rather than a prime minister selected by the legislature. That seems a much better system. For offices that people vote for, they also should have ranked choice voting and runoffs, rather than first past the post and party nominations. And, in this partnership, how much sovereignty has been given up by the countries? Do they still print their own money? Is there are tax on individuals levied by the partnership? Can they declare war on eachother, or on other nations outside? Can they restrict immigration from other countries of this partnership? Can they allow immigration from countries outside of this partnership? Can they regulate trade between themselves and other nations in this partnership? Can they form their own trade alliances with countries outside of the partnership? Does the partnership have the ability to impose laws on the countries, or to repeal laws that those countries have passed? If the answer to any of those is “No”, and I would assume that in most international compacts, most of them would be, then it is a very different situation, and not really comparable to the US. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2020, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/223 "2020-09-17T21:35:29Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’d say that they made a mistake in having a unitary executive, rather than a prime minister selected by the legislature. That seems a much better system. I’m not going to disagree, but either way, since the hypothetical legislature is bicameral with a “1 vote per state” component, a prime minister selected by the legislature would also be subject to the same “unfairness” criteria. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > And, in this partnership, how much sovereignty has been given up by the countries? > > Do they still print their own money? Is there are tax on individuals levied by the partnership? Can they declare war on eachother, or on other nations outside? Can they restrict immigration from other countries of this partnership? Can they allow immigration from countries outside of this partnership? Can they regulate trade between themselves and other nations in this partnership? Can they form their own trade alliances with countries outside of the partnership? Does the partnership have the ability to impose laws on the countries, or to repeal laws that those countries have passed? > > If the answer to any of those is “No”, and I would assume that in most international compacts, most of them would be, then it is a very different situation, and not really comparable to the US. Since this hypothetical is an intentional parallel of the formation of the US, answer the questions however you feel best reflects that. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2020, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/224 "2020-09-17T23:23:52Z")
It depends on how you apportion the votes among districts. Let’s assume every state create equally sized districts, one for each electoral vote. I’m getting **13.05%** … somebody better check my math. I’m in a rush but I’ll check it myself later. But yes, it is in the purview of individual state legislatures to award electoral votes however they want, provided they abide by other constitutional provisions like the equal protection clause. > **Details** > > We need to reorder all the states by votes to win by district. This involves two new columns: > > - District Turnout = Turnout / EC Votes > - Votes to Win District = FLOOR(District Turnout / 2) + 1 > > * * * > > > **Table 3: Hypothetical 2016 District-By-District Data** > > > > State|EC Votes|Turnout|Turnout per District|Votes to Win per District > > —|---|— > > Wyoming|3|252,653|84,218|42,110 > > Alaska|3|275,975|91,992|45,997 > > District of Columbia|3|282,871|94,291|47,146 > > Vermont|3|301,871|100,624|50,313 > > North Dakota|3|320,232|106,744|53,373 > > Maine|4|447,691|111,923|55,962 > > Rhode Island|4|474,751|118,688|59,345 > > Delaware|3|440,626|146,876|73,439 > > South Dakota|3|441,821|147,274|73,638 > > New Hampshire|4|616,292|154,073|77,037 > > West Virginia|5|802,589|160,518|80,260 > > Hawaii|4|653,295|163,324|81,663 > > Nebraska|5|835,857|167,172|83,587 > > Montana|3|516,329|172,110|86,056 > > Idaho|4|690,690|172,673|86,337 > > Nevada|6|1,131,836|188,640|94,321 > > Utah|6|1,167,245|194,541|97,271 > > New Mexico|5|1,001,728|200,346|100,174 > > Kansas|6|1,232,415|205,403|102,702 > > Georgia|16|3,556,541|222,284|111,143 > > Maryland|10|2,283,341|228,335|114,168 > > Tennessee|11|2,567,630|233,421|116,711 > > South Carolina|9|2,129,128|236,570|118,286 > > Michigan|16|3,814,203|238,388|119,195 > > Oregon|7|1,669,344|238,478|119,240 > > Connecticut|7|1,671,046|238,721|119,361 > > Mississippi|6|1,454,984|242,498|121,250 > > Wisconsin|10|2,433,920|243,392|121,697 > > New Jersey|14|3,409,743|243,554|121,778 > > Alabama|9|2,266,733|251,860|125,931 > > Arkansas|6|1,513,049|252,175|126,088 > > Florida|29|7,329,735|252,750|126,376 > > Kentucky|8|2,041,665|255,209|127,605 > > Minnesota|10|2,558,743|255,875|127,938 > > Iowa|6|1,537,896|256,316|128,159 > > Louisiana|8|2,091,581|261,448|130,725 > > Arizona|11|2,882,108|262,010|131,006 > > Washington|12|3,258,241|271,521|135,761 > > California|55|14,937,382|271,589|135,795 > > Virginia|13|3,562,047|274,004|137,003 > > Ohio|18|4,962,507|275,695|137,848 > > Indiana|11|3,050,610|277,329|138,665 > > Illinois|20|5,723,727|286,187|143,094 > > North Carolina|15|4,308,566|287,238|143,620 > > Missouri|10|2,914,062|291,407|145,704 > > Oklahoma|7|2,058,660|294,095|147,048 > > Massachusetts|11|3,275,595|297,782|148,892 > > New York|29|8,802,205|303,525|151,763 > > Colorado|9|2,837,725|315,303|157,652 > > Texas|38|12,126,992|319,132|159,567 > > Pennsylvania|20|6,405,857|320,293|160,147 > > Now you can go down the list and add the EC votes until you reach 270. In this case, it’s from Wyoming through Arizona. As chance would have it, that comes out to 270 votes even, no need to have any split states. We’ll make another table, this time with a new Votes to Win column showing the product of EC Votes and Votes to Win per District. > > > **Table 4: Votes to Win, Hypothetical District-by-District Election** > > > > | State | EC Votes | Votes to Win | > > | --- | --- | --- | > > | Wyoming | 3 | 126,330 | > > | Alaska | 3 | 137,991 | > > | District of Columbia | 3 | 141,438 | > > | Vermont | 3 | 150,939 | > > | North Dakota | 3 | 160,119 | > > | Maine | 4 | 223,848 | > > | Rhode Island | 4 | 237,380 | > > | Delaware | 3 | 220,317 | > > | South Dakota | 3 | 220,914 | > > | New Hampshire | 4 | 308,148 | > > | West Virginia | 5 | 401,300 | > > | Hawaii | 4 | 326,652 | > > | Nebraska | 5 | 417,935 | > > | Montana | 3 | 258,168 | > > | Idaho | 4 | 345,348 | > > | Nevada | 6 | 565,926 | > > | Utah | 6 | 583,626 | > > | New Mexico | 5 | 500,870 | > > | Kansas | 6 | 616,212 | > > | Georgia | 16 | 1,778,288 | > > | Maryland | 10 | 1,141,680 | > > | Tennessee | 11 | 1,283,821 | > > | South Carolina | 9 | 1,064,574 | > > | Michigan | 16 | 1,907,120 | > > | Oregon | 7 | 834,680 | > > | Connecticut | 7 | 835,527 | > > | Mississippi | 6 | 727,500 | > > | Wisconsin | 10 | 1,216,970 | > > | New Jersey | 14 | 1,704,892 | > > | Alabama | 9 | 1,133,379 | > > | Arkansas | 6 | 756,528 | > > | Florida | 29 | 3,664,904 | > > | Kentucky | 8 | 1,020,840 | > > | Minnesota | 10 | 1,279,380 | > > | Iowa | 6 | 768,954 | > > | Louisiana | 8 | 1,045,800 | > > | Arizona | 11 | 1,441,066 | > > | — | — | — | > > | United States | 270 | 29,549,364 | > > Now we can take this sum (29,549,364 votes) and divide it by the total votes cast from table 1 (226,410,346 votes). The result is **13.05%** of the national popular vote. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/225 "2020-09-18T02:26:43Z")
I guess it would be fighting the hypothetical to say that I doubt that established nations would give up that much sovereignty, as opposed to little more than colony outposts that could barely muster self sufficiency. I do note a few differences from your hypothetical to the formation of the US. The first being that it wouldn’t just be those 5, we’d get Australia, New Zealand, some of the Pacific island nations, and some number of Central American countries as well. Over the years, we’d be adding in more countries/states, and barely a four score years in, we’d have a pretty brutal civil war. Then we’d add in even more states. China and the US may be the population and economic centers of the partnership, but they’d have very little power over its governance. Kiribati and French Polynesia would be the first to cast their primary ballots. At the end of the day, what you seem to be asking is, if we made all the same mistakes today, would people be bitching about them in 200 years? At the very least, the powers should either be more equally divided, or leaning towards the House. The Senate shouldn’t hold a monopoly on appointments. Personally, I think that the bicameral legislature was an okay idea, but it didn’t go far enough. I like a pentacameral legislature, where there are several ways of apportioning votes, to ensure that everyone has a voice. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/226 "2020-09-18T15:24:32Z")
Thanks. I was assuming no districts though (which is worse). I was assuming that if you got X% of the votes in a state, you got X% of the delegates for that state. This allows a simple calculation of “votes per delegate” per state (from your original data, this gives 84K votes/delegate for Wyoming, 271K votes/delegate for California). Adding this up (ignoring the rounding for the final delegate) and I get that you need 47.59% of the vote minimum. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/227 "2020-09-18T15:40:25Z")
Yes if 200 years go by, and the cultural, demographic and nationalist differences that previously separated China from western countries have largely dissolved but Chinese votes are still counted less than those of the US and Europe, that would be an unfair anti-democratic anachronism that should be gotten rid of. Particularly if the candidate who won was constantly threatening to cut off funds to China. Also its not as if the arbitrarily drawn state lines actually represent different cultural populations with different representative views. The populations and political interests Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota, are much less distinct, than are those of Northern and Southern California, but because of arbitrary lines made up at the time of the civil war these 4 states have 4 times the power of California in the senate despite representing 1/10th the number of people. I suppose we should be grateful that they didn’t decide to divide Alaska into 10 different territories before they were admitted into the union. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/228 "2020-09-18T15:54:22Z")
Refining it to account for rounding of each state’s last EC, plus not needing all of New Jersey, and I get that changing states to X% of the state vote gets you X% of the delegates, you need 42.5% of the vote to win. Substantial improvement from 23% (while still giving something towards small states) and only needing state laws to enact, not constitutional change. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/229 "2020-09-18T16:31:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > It depends on how you apportion the votes among districts. Let’s assume every state create equally sized districts, one for each electoral vote. I’m getting **13.05%** … somebody better check my math. I’m in a rush but I’ll check it myself later. > > But yes, it is in the purview of individual state legislatures to award electoral votes however they want, provided they abide by other constitutional provisions like the equal protection clause. > > > **Details** > > > > We need to reorder all the states by votes to win by district. This involves two new columns: > > > > - District Turnout = Turnout / EC Votes > > - Votes to Win District = FLOOR(District Turnout / 2) + 1 > > > > * * * > > > > > **Table 3: Hypothetical 2016 District-By-District Data** > > > > > > State|EC Votes|Turnout|Turnout per District|Votes to Win per District > > > —|—|— > > > Wyoming|3|252,653|84,218|42,110 > > > Alaska|3|275,975|91,992|45,997 > > > District of Columbia|3|282,871|94,291|47,146 > > > Vermont|3|301,871|100,624|50,313 > > > North Dakota|3|320,232|106,744|53,373 > > > Maine|4|447,691|111,923|55,962 > > > Rhode Island|4|474,751|118,688|59,345 > > > Delaware|3|440,626|146,876|73,439 > > > South Dakota|3|441,821|147,274|73,638 > > > New Hampshire|4|616,292|154,073|77,037 > > > West Virginia|5|802,589|160,518|80,260 > > > Hawaii|4|653,295|163,324|81,663 > > > Nebraska|5|835,857|167,172|83,587 > > > Montana|3|516,329|172,110|86,056 > > > Idaho|4|690,690|172,673|86,337 > > > Nevada|6|1,131,836|188,640|94,321 > > > Utah|6|1,167,245|194,541|97,271 > > > New Mexico|5|1,001,728|200,346|100,174 > > > Kansas|6|1,232,415|205,403|102,702 > > > Georgia|16|3,556,541|222,284|111,143 > > > Maryland|10|2,283,341|228,335|114,168 > > > Tennessee|11|2,567,630|233,421|116,711 > > > South Carolina|9|2,129,128|236,570|118,286 > > > Michigan|16|3,814,203|238,388|119,195 > > > Oregon|7|1,669,344|238,478|119,240 > > > Connecticut|7|1,671,046|238,721|119,361 > > > Mississippi|6|1,454,984|242,498|121,250 > > > Wisconsin|10|2,433,920|243,392|121,697 > > > New Jersey|14|3,409,743|243,554|121,778 > > > Alabama|9|2,266,733|251,860|125,931 > > > Arkansas|6|1,513,049|252,175|126,088 > > > Florida|29|7,329,735|252,750|126,376 > > > Kentucky|8|2,041,665|255,209|127,605 > > > Minnesota|10|2,558,743|255,875|127,938 > > > Iowa|6|1,537,896|256,316|128,159 > > > Louisiana|8|2,091,581|261,448|130,725 > > > Arizona|11|2,882,108|262,010|131,006 > > > Washington|12|3,258,241|271,521|135,761 > > > California|55|14,937,382|271,589|135,795 > > > Virginia|13|3,562,047|274,004|137,003 > > > Ohio|18|4,962,507|275,695|137,848 > > > Indiana|11|3,050,610|277,329|138,665 > > > Illinois|20|5,723,727|286,187|143,094 > > > North Carolina|15|4,308,566|287,238|143,620 > > > Missouri|10|2,914,062|291,407|145,704 > > > Oklahoma|7|2,058,660|294,095|147,048 > > > Massachusetts|11|3,275,595|297,782|148,892 > > > New York|29|8,802,205|303,525|151,763 > > > Colorado|9|2,837,725|315,303|157,652 > > > Texas|38|12,126,992|319,132|159,567 > > > Pennsylvania|20|6,405,857|320,293|160,147 > > > > Now you can go down the list and add the EC votes until you reach 270. In this case, it’s from Wyoming through Arizona. As chance would have it, that comes out to 270 votes even, no need to have any split states. We’ll make another table, this time with a new Votes to Win column showing the product of EC Votes and Votes to Win per District. > > > > > **Table 4: Votes to Win, Hypothetical District-by-District Election** > > > > > > | State | EC Votes | Votes to Win | > > > | --- | --- | --- | > > > | Wyoming | 3 | 126,330 | > > > | Alaska | 3 | 137,991 | > > > | District of Columbia | 3 | 141,438 | > > > | Vermont | 3 | 150,939 | > > > | North Dakota | 3 | 160,119 | > > > | Maine | 4 | 223,848 | > > > | Rhode Island | 4 | 237,380 | > > > | Delaware | 3 | 220,317 | > > > | South Dakota | 3 | 220,914 | > > > | New Hampshire | 4 | 308,148 | > > > | West Virginia | 5 | 401,300 | > > > | Hawaii | 4 | 326,652 | > > > | Nebraska | 5 | 417,935 | > > > | Montana | 3 | 258,168 | > > > | Idaho | 4 | 345,348 | > > > | Nevada | 6 | 565,926 | > > > | Utah | 6 | 583,626 | > > > | New Mexico | 5 | 500,870 | > > > | Kansas | 6 | 616,212 | > > > | Georgia | 16 | 1,778,288 | > > > | Maryland | 10 | 1,141,680 | > > > | Tennessee | 11 | 1,283,821 | > > > | South Carolina | 9 | 1,064,574 | > > > | Michigan | 16 | 1,907,120 | > > > | Oregon | 7 | 834,680 | > > > | Connecticut | 7 | 835,527 | > > > | Mississippi | 6 | 727,500 | > > > | Wisconsin | 10 | 1,216,970 | > > > | New Jersey | 14 | 1,704,892 | > > > | Alabama | 9 | 1,133,379 | > > > | Arkansas | 6 | 756,528 | > > > | Florida | 29 | 3,664,904 | > > > | Kentucky | 8 | 1,020,840 | > > > | Minnesota | 10 | 1,279,380 | > > > | Iowa | 6 | 768,954 | > > > | Louisiana | 8 | 1,045,800 | > > > | Arizona | 11 | 1,441,066 | > > > | — | — | — | > > > | United States | 270 | 29,549,364 | > > > > Now we can take this sum (29,549,364 votes) and divide it by the total votes cast from table 1 (226,410,346 votes). The result is **13.05%** of the national popular vote. > > ~Max I’ve looked my post over and the math checks out. If the 2016 Presidential election took place under a district-by-district system, given a few assumptions, a candidate could win the election with only 13.05% of the popular vote. One of those major assumptions is that each state created a number of voting districts, such that the number of districts in the state equals the number of electoral votes in the state, and that each district within the same state has the same number of eligible voters. (There are other, probably better methods of awarding “proportional” votes). Another major assumption is that voter turnout would have been the same as it was during the actual 2016 election; also that voter turnout would have been homogenous throughout the state. Here’s a properly formatted Table 3. > **Table 3: Hypothetical 2016 District-by-District Data** > > > | State | EC Votes | Turnout % | Voting Eligible Population | Turnout | > > | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | > > | Wyoming | 3 | 58.80% | 429,682 | 252,653 | > > | Vermont | 3 | 61.00% | 494,871 | 301,871 | > > | District of Columbia | 3 | 54.90% | 515,248 | 282,871 | > > | Alaska | 3 | 52.80% | 522,679 | 275,975 | > > | North Dakota | 3 | 56.50% | 566,783 | 320,232 | > > | South Dakota | 3 | 70.00% | 631,173 | 441,821 | > > | Delaware | 3 | 63.70% | 691,720 | 440,626 | > > | Montana | 3 | 64.20% | 804,250 | 516,329 | > > | Rhode Island | 4 | 60.40% | 786,012 | 474,751 | > > | Hawaii | 4 | 64.50% | 1,012,860 | 653,295 | > > | New Hampshire | 4 | 59.10% | 1,042,795 | 616,292 | > > | Maine | 4 | 42.30% | 1,058,372 | 447,691 | > > | Idaho | 4 | 59.20% | 1,166,706 | 690,690 | > > | Nebraska | 5 | 62.20% | 1,343,821 | 835,857 | > > | West Virginia | 5 | 56.40% | 1,423,031 | 802,589 | > > | New Mexico | 5 | 68.40% | 1,464,515 | 1,001,728 | > > | Nevada | 6 | 57.70% | 1,961,587 | 1,131,836 | > > | Utah | 6 | 58.60% | 1,991,885 | 1,167,245 | > > | Kansas | 6 | 60.00% | 2,054,025 | 1,232,415 | > > | Arkansas | 6 | 70.70% | 2,140,097 | 1,513,049 | > > | Mississippi | 6 | 66.40% | 2,191,241 | 1,454,984 | > > | Iowa | 6 | 67.20% | 2,288,536 | 1,537,896 | > > | Connecticut | 7 | 64.70% | 2,582,761 | 1,671,046 | > > | Oklahoma | 7 | 74.10% | 2,778,219 | 2,058,660 | > > | Oregon | 7 | 55.20% | 3,024,174 | 1,669,344 | > > | Kentucky | 8 | 62.20% | 3,282,420 | 2,041,665 | > > | Louisiana | 8 | 61.80% | 3,384,435 | 2,091,581 | > > | Alabama | 9 | 62.80% | 3,609,447 | 2,266,733 | > > | South Carolina | 9 | 57.40% | 3,709,283 | 2,129,128 | > > | Colorado | 9 | 71.40% | 3,974,405 | 2,837,725 | > > | Minnesota | 10 | 64.40% | 3,973,204 | 2,558,743 | > > | Maryland | 10 | 54.50% | 4,189,616 | 2,283,341 | > > | Wisconsin | 10 | 56.80% | 4,285,071 | 2,433,920 | > > | Missouri | 10 | 64.50% | 4,517,925 | 2,914,062 | > > | Arizona | 11 | 60.80% | 4,740,310 | 2,882,108 | > > | Indiana | 11 | 62.90% | 4,849,937 | 3,050,610 | > > | Tennessee | 11 | 52.30% | 4,909,426 | 2,567,630 | > > | Massachusetts | 11 | 66.20% | 4,948,028 | 3,275,595 | > > | Washington | 12 | 63.60% | 5,123,020 | 3,258,241 | > > | Virginia | 13 | 59.10% | 6,027,152 | 3,562,047 | > > | New Jersey | 14 | 56.70% | 6,013,656 | 3,409,743 | > > | North Carolina | 15 | 58.60% | 7,352,501 | 4,308,566 | > > | Georgia | 16 | 51.10% | 6,959,963 | 3,556,541 | > > | Michigan | 16 | 51.40% | 7,420,628 | 3,814,203 | > > | Ohio | 18 | 56.80% | 8,736,808 | 4,962,507 | > > | Illinois | 20 | 63.70% | 8,985,443 | 5,723,727 | > > | Pennsylvania | 20 | 66.10% | 9,691,160 | 6,405,857 | > > | New York | 29 | 64.70% | 13,604,645 | 8,802,205 | > > | Florida | 29 | 50.20% | 14,601,066 | 7,329,735 | > > | Texas | 38 | 69.50% | 17,448,910 | 12,126,992 | > > | California | 55 | 59.50% | 25,104,844 | 14,937,382 | ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/230 "2020-09-18T17:33:36Z")
> [@squidfood](#): > > and only needing state laws to enact, not constitutional change. However it would still require that all states be bound in some way to follow this method. Otherwise, it would be unilateral disarmament for those states who decided to follow it if others remained winner take all. So I’m not sure that this would be any easier to get to work than a constitutional amendment. Also , even if every statwhile it eliminate of problem of the overwhelming power of the swing states, and gives more power to those states with landslide elections, it still doesn’t solve the issue of the population to EC vote advantage of the small states. In fact it makes it somewhat worse, for example if the 4 states (ND, SD, MT, WY) each split the vote 47/53 in favor of Trump, that will result in a net gain of 4EVs for Trump. Meanwhile a 53/47 split for CA, would only result in 3 EV’s for Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/231 "2020-09-18T18:34:55Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > There are other, probably better methods of awarding “proportional” votes If we took the Maine/Nebraska approach and awarded two EC votes to the statewide popular vote, and the rest to the majority winner in each district, I’m getting a minimum of **14.03%** of the national popular vote to win the election. You can check Table 5, which is sorted by votes to win per district. You can get exactly 270 votes by winning every district of only 23 states and D.C. (Maine through Minnesota on the table); winning every district in a state is enough to win both at-large electors in that state. This still rests on the assumptions that there are no third-parties, that voter turnout reflects the 2016 election, and that voter turnout is homogeneous throughout each state. > **Table 5: Votes to Win, Hypothetical Maine/Nebraska-Style Election** > > > | State | EC Votes | Turnout | Districts | District Turnout | Votes to Win District | Votes to Win All Districts | Votes to Win At-Large | > > | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | > > | Maine | 4 | 447,691 | 2 | 223,846 | 111,924 | 223,848 | 223,846 | > > | Rhode Island | 4 | 474,751 | 2 | 237,376 | 118,689 | 237,378 | 237,376 | > > | Wyoming | 3 | 252,653 | 1 | 252,653 | 126,327 | 126,327 | 126,327 | > > | Georgia | 16 | 3,556,541 | 14 | 254,039 | 127,020 | 1,778,280 | 1,778,271 | > > | West Virginia | 5 | 802,589 | 3 | 267,530 | 133,766 | 401,298 | 401,295 | > > | Florida | 29 | 7,329,735 | 27 | 271,472 | 135,737 | 3,664,899 | 3,664,868 | > > | Michigan | 16 | 3,814,203 | 14 | 272,443 | 136,222 | 1,907,108 | 1,907,102 | > > | Alaska | 3 | 275,975 | 1 | 275,975 | 137,988 | 137,988 | 137,988 | > > | Nebraska | 5 | 835,857 | 3 | 278,619 | 139,310 | 417,930 | 417,929 | > > | California | 55 | 14,937,382 | 53 | 281,837 | 140,919 | 7,468,707 | 7,468,692 | > > | District of Columbia | 3 | 282,871 | 1 | 282,871 | 141,436 | 141,436 | 141,436 | > > | Nevada | 6 | 1,131,836 | 4 | 282,959 | 141,480 | 565,920 | 565,919 | > > | New Jersey | 14 | 3,409,743 | 12 | 284,145 | 142,073 | 1,704,876 | 1,704,872 | > > | Tennessee | 11 | 2,567,630 | 9 | 285,292 | 142,647 | 1,283,823 | 1,283,816 | > > | Maryland | 10 | 2,283,341 | 8 | 285,418 | 142,710 | 1,141,680 | 1,141,671 | > > | Utah | 6 | 1,167,245 | 4 | 291,811 | 145,906 | 583,624 | 583,623 | > > | Vermont | 3 | 301,871 | 1 | 301,871 | 150,936 | 150,936 | 150,936 | > > | South Carolina | 9 | 2,129,128 | 7 | 304,161 | 152,081 | 1,064,567 | 1,064,565 | > > | Wisconsin | 10 | 2,433,920 | 8 | 304,240 | 152,121 | 1,216,968 | 1,216,961 | > > | Kansas | 6 | 1,232,415 | 4 | 308,104 | 154,053 | 616,212 | 616,208 | > > | New Hampshire | 4 | 616,292 | 2 | 308,146 | 154,074 | 308,148 | 308,147 | > > | Ohio | 18 | 4,962,507 | 16 | 310,157 | 155,079 | 2,481,264 | 2,481,254 | > > | Illinois | 20 | 5,723,727 | 18 | 317,985 | 158,993 | 2,861,874 | 2,861,864 | > > | Minnesota | 10 | 2,558,743 | 8 | 319,843 | 159,922 | 1,279,376 | 1,279,372 | > > | **Subtotal** | **270** | — | — | — | — | **31,764,467** | — | > > | North Dakota | 3 | 320,232 | 1 | 320,232 | 160,117 | 160,117 | 160,117 | > > | Arizona | 11 | 2,882,108 | 9 | 320,234 | 160,118 | 1,441,062 | 1,441,055 | > > | Alabama | 9 | 2,266,733 | 7 | 323,819 | 161,910 | 1,133,370 | 1,133,367 | > > | Virginia | 13 | 3,562,047 | 11 | 323,822 | 161,912 | 1,781,032 | 1,781,024 | > > | Washington | 12 | 3,258,241 | 10 | 325,824 | 162,913 | 1,629,130 | 1,629,121 | > > | New York | 29 | 8,802,205 | 27 | 326,008 | 163,005 | 4,401,135 | 4,401,103 | > > | Hawaii | 4 | 653,295 | 2 | 326,648 | 163,324 | 326,648 | 326,648 | > > | North Carolina | 15 | 4,308,566 | 13 | 331,428 | 165,715 | 2,154,295 | 2,154,284 | > > | Oregon | 7 | 1,669,344 | 5 | 333,869 | 166,935 | 834,675 | 834,673 | > > | New Mexico | 5 | 1,001,728 | 3 | 333,909 | 166,955 | 500,865 | 500,865 | > > | Connecticut | 7 | 1,671,046 | 5 | 334,209 | 167,105 | 835,525 | 835,524 | > > | Texas | 38 | 12,126,992 | 36 | 336,861 | 168,431 | 6,063,516 | 6,063,497 | > > | Indiana | 11 | 3,050,610 | 9 | 338,957 | 169,479 | 1,525,311 | 1,525,306 | > > | Kentucky | 8 | 2,041,665 | 6 | 340,278 | 170,140 | 1,020,840 | 1,020,833 | > > | Idaho | 4 | 690,690 | 2 | 345,345 | 172,673 | 345,346 | 345,346 | > > | Louisiana | 8 | 2,091,581 | 6 | 348,597 | 174,299 | 1,045,794 | 1,045,791 | > > | Pennsylvania | 20 | 6,405,857 | 18 | 355,881 | 177,941 | 3,202,938 | 3,202,929 | > > | Mississippi | 6 | 1,454,984 | 4 | 363,746 | 181,874 | 727,496 | 727,493 | > > | Massachusetts | 11 | 3,275,595 | 9 | 363,955 | 181,978 | 1,637,802 | 1,637,798 | > > | Missouri | 10 | 2,914,062 | 8 | 364,258 | 182,130 | 1,457,040 | 1,457,032 | > > | Arkansas | 6 | 1,513,049 | 4 | 378,262 | 189,132 | 756,528 | 756,525 | > > | Iowa | 6 | 1,537,896 | 4 | 384,474 | 192,238 | 768,952 | 768,949 | > > | Colorado | 9 | 2,837,725 | 7 | 405,389 | 202,695 | 1,418,865 | 1,418,863 | > > | Oklahoma | 7 | 2,058,660 | 5 | 411,732 | 205,867 | 1,029,335 | 1,029,331 | > > | Delaware | 3 | 440,626 | 1 | 440,626 | 220,314 | 220,314 | 220,314 | > > | South Dakota | 3 | 441,821 | 1 | 441,821 | 220,911 | 220,911 | 220,911 | > > | Montana | 3 | 516,329 | 1 | 516,329 | 258,165 | 258,165 | 258,165 | Fun fact: Maine’s approach to the electoral college makes a down-easter’s vote more important than anybody else’s in the country. At least, it does until you factor in strongholds and battlegrounds. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/232 "2020-09-18T18:51:13Z")
I suspect that a proportional vote in 2016 (as described by **squidfood** ) would have sent the election to the (then-Republican) House of Representatives… ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/233 "2020-09-18T19:36:12Z")
According to my calculations, a candidate can win the Presidency under your proportional popular vote system with only **24.51%** of the popular vote. Table 6 is sorted by Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last. The candidate needs only win over all the electoral votes of 36 states, plus D.C. (Wyoming through Arizona on the table). > **Columns for Table 6** > > > **Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last** = Turnout / EC Votes > > **Votes to Tie for All Electors Except Last** = Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last \* (EC Votes - 1) > > **Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector** = Turnout / (EC Votes \* 2) > > **Votes to Win All Electors** = floor(Votes to Tie for All Electors Except Last + Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector) + 1 > > **Direct Calculation** = floor(Turnout \* (EC Votes - 0.5) / EC Votes) + 1 > **Table 6: Votes to Win, Hypothetical Proportional-Style Election** > > > | State | EC Votes | Turnout | Votes to Tie for Each Elector Except Last | Votes to Tie for All Electors Except Last | Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector | Votes to Win All Electors | Direct Calculation | > > | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | > > | Wyoming | 3 | 252,653 | 84,217.67 | 168,435.33 | 42,108.83 | 210,546 | 210,545 | > > | Alaska | 3 | 275,975 | 91,991.67 | 183,983.33 | 45,995.83 | 229,979 | 229,980 | > > | District of Columbia | 3 | 282,871 | 94,290.33 | 188,580.67 | 47,145.17 | 235,726 | 235,726 | > > | Vermont | 3 | 301,871 | 100,623.67 | 201,247.33 | 50,311.83 | 251,559 | 251,560 | > > | North Dakota | 3 | 320,232 | 106,744.00 | 213,488.00 | 53,372.00 | 266,860 | 266,861 | > > | Maine | 4 | 447,691 | 111,922.75 | 335,768.25 | 55,961.38 | 391,730 | 391,730 | > > | Rhode Island | 4 | 474,751 | 118,687.75 | 356,063.25 | 59,343.88 | 415,407 | 415,408 | > > | Delaware | 3 | 440,626 | 146,875.33 | 293,750.67 | 73,437.67 | 367,188 | 367,189 | > > | South Dakota | 3 | 441,821 | 147,273.67 | 294,547.33 | 73,636.83 | 368,184 | 368,185 | > > | New Hampshire | 4 | 616,292 | 154,073.00 | 462,219.00 | 77,036.50 | 539,256 | 539,256 | > > | West Virginia | 5 | 802,589 | 160,517.80 | 642,071.20 | 80,258.90 | 722,330 | 722,331 | > > | Hawaii | 4 | 653,295 | 163,323.75 | 489,971.25 | 81,661.88 | 571,633 | 571,634 | > > | Nebraska | 5 | 835,857 | 167,171.40 | 668,685.60 | 83,585.70 | 752,271 | 752,272 | > > | Montana | 3 | 516,329 | 172,109.67 | 344,219.33 | 86,054.83 | 430,274 | 430,275 | > > | Idaho | 4 | 690,690 | 172,672.50 | 518,017.50 | 86,336.25 | 604,354 | 604,354 | > > | Nevada | 6 | 1,131,836 | 188,639.33 | 943,196.67 | 94,319.67 | 1,037,516 | 1,037,517 | > > | Utah | 6 | 1,167,245 | 194,540.83 | 972,704.17 | 97,270.42 | 1,069,975 | 1,069,975 | > > | New Mexico | 5 | 1,001,728 | 200,345.60 | 801,382.40 | 100,172.80 | 901,555 | 901,556 | > > | Kansas | 6 | 1,232,415 | 205,402.50 | 1,027,012.50 | 102,701.25 | 1,129,714 | 1,129,714 | > > | Georgia | 16 | 3,556,541 | 222,283.81 | 3,334,257.19 | 111,141.91 | 3,445,399 | 3,445,400 | > > | Maryland | 10 | 2,283,341 | 228,334.10 | 2,055,006.90 | 114,167.05 | 2,169,174 | 2,169,174 | > > | Tennessee | 11 | 2,567,630 | 233,420.91 | 2,334,209.09 | 116,710.45 | 2,450,920 | 2,450,920 | > > | South Carolina | 9 | 2,129,128 | 236,569.78 | 1,892,558.22 | 118,284.89 | 2,010,843 | 2,010,844 | > > | Michigan | 16 | 3,814,203 | 238,387.69 | 3,575,815.31 | 119,193.84 | 3,695,009 | 3,695,010 | > > | Oregon | 7 | 1,669,344 | 238,477.71 | 1,430,866.29 | 119,238.86 | 1,550,105 | 1,550,106 | > > | Connecticut | 7 | 1,671,046 | 238,720.86 | 1,432,325.14 | 119,360.43 | 1,551,686 | 1,551,686 | > > | Mississippi | 6 | 1,454,984 | 242,497.33 | 1,212,486.67 | 121,248.67 | 1,333,735 | 1,333,736 | > > | Wisconsin | 10 | 2,433,920 | 243,392.00 | 2,190,528.00 | 121,696.00 | 2,312,224 | 2,312,225 | > > | New Jersey | 14 | 3,409,743 | 243,553.07 | 3,166,189.93 | 121,776.54 | 3,287,966 | 3,287,967 | > > | Alabama | 9 | 2,266,733 | 251,859.22 | 2,014,873.78 | 125,929.61 | 2,140,803 | 2,140,804 | > > | Arkansas | 6 | 1,513,049 | 252,174.83 | 1,260,874.17 | 126,087.42 | 1,386,962 | 1,386,962 | > > | Florida | 29 | 7,329,735 | 252,749.48 | 7,076,985.52 | 126,374.74 | 7,203,360 | 7,203,361 | > > | Kentucky | 8 | 2,041,665 | 255,208.13 | 1,786,456.88 | 127,604.06 | 1,914,061 | 1,914,061 | > > | Minnesota | 10 | 2,558,743 | 255,874.30 | 2,302,868.70 | 127,937.15 | 2,430,806 | 2,430,806 | > > | Iowa | 6 | 1,537,896 | 256,316.00 | 1,281,580.00 | 128,158.00 | 1,409,738 | 1,409,739 | > > | Louisiana | 8 | 2,091,581 | 261,447.63 | 1,830,133.38 | 130,723.81 | 1,960,857 | 1,960,858 | > > | Arizona | 11 | 2,882,108 | 262,009.82 | 2,620,098.18 | 131,004.91 | 2,751,103 | 2,751,104 | > > | **Subtotal** | **270** | — | — | — | — | **55,500,938** | **55,500,831** | > > | Washington | 12 | 3,258,241 | 271,520.08 | 2,986,720.92 | 135,760.04 | 3,122,481 | 3,122,481 | > > | California | 55 | 14,937,382 | 271,588.76 | 14,665,793.24 | 135,794.38 | 14,801,588 | 14,801,588 | > > | Virginia | 13 | 3,562,047 | 274,003.62 | 3,288,043.38 | 137,001.81 | 3,425,045 | 3,425,046 | > > | Ohio | 18 | 4,962,507 | 275,694.83 | 4,686,812.17 | 137,847.42 | 4,824,660 | 4,824,660 | > > | Indiana | 11 | 3,050,610 | 277,328.18 | 2,773,281.82 | 138,664.09 | 2,911,946 | 2,911,946 | > > | Illinois | 20 | 5,723,727 | 286,186.35 | 5,437,540.65 | 143,093.18 | 5,580,634 | 5,580,634 | > > | North Carolina | 15 | 4,308,566 | 287,237.73 | 4,021,328.27 | 143,618.87 | 4,164,947 | 4,164,948 | > > | Missouri | 10 | 2,914,062 | 291,406.20 | 2,622,655.80 | 145,703.10 | 2,768,359 | 2,768,359 | > > | Oklahoma | 7 | 2,058,660 | 294,094.29 | 1,764,565.71 | 147,047.14 | 1,911,613 | 1,911,613 | > > | Massachusetts | 11 | 3,275,595 | 297,781.36 | 2,977,813.64 | 148,890.68 | 3,126,704 | 3,126,705 | > > | New York | 29 | 8,802,205 | 303,524.31 | 8,498,680.69 | 151,762.16 | 8,650,443 | 8,650,443 | > > | Colorado | 9 | 2,837,725 | 315,302.78 | 2,522,422.22 | 157,651.39 | 2,680,074 | 2,680,074 | > > | Texas | 38 | 12,126,992 | 319,131.37 | 11,807,860.63 | 159,565.68 | 11,967,426 | 11,967,427 | > > | Pennsylvania | 20 | 6,405,857 | 320,292.85 | 6,085,564.15 | 160,146.43 | 6,245,711 | 6,245,711 | ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Dark\_Sponge](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dark_sponge/32/121_2.png) [@Dark\_Sponge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dark_Sponge)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/234 "2020-09-18T19:55:00Z")
I’m surprised at how many Dopers think a popular vote is the answer. I wonder if they’ve really thought this through. Our elections are binary: Joe vs Jake, Jane vs Janet, Pass vs Fail. We do not have a multiparty system where 3rd and 4th place get a seat at the political table. This means the country’s urban areas would be in de-facto control of EVERY election. I suppose this might seem great if you live in an urban area but I wonder if they have thought how the rest of the country would be affected. We would be going back to taxation without representation. Does this really seem fair? ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/235 "2020-09-18T20:05:53Z")
> [@Dark\_Sponge](#): > > Our elections are binary: Joe vs Jake, Jane vs Janet, Pass vs Fail. We do not have a multiparty system where 3rd and 4th place get a seat at the political table. This means the country’s urban areas would be in de-facto control of EVERY election. Do the countries urban areas control the House and Senate EVERY election? But while we’re dumping the EC, we can implement SRV or Instant Runoff ro some other better system. > [@Dark\_Sponge](#): > > Does this really seem fair? Yes. Does it seem fair that all votes aren’t equal? ---
**Author:** ![Dark\_Sponge](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dark_sponge/32/121_2.png) [@Dark\_Sponge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dark_Sponge)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/236 "2020-09-18T20:12:28Z")
> [@Yookeroo](#): > > Does it seem fair that all votes aren’t equal? I’d prefer they were equal but I’d much rather have all of them count in varying degrees vs some not be counted. I would probably support the abolishment of the EC if we had an alternate political party system in place: Force 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place candidates to form a political coalition as other countries do and I could see a popular vote working. I’m not certain it would be better than the EC but it would function. ---
**Author:** ![squidfood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a87d85/32.png) [@squidfood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squidfood)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/237 "2020-09-18T20:12:56Z")
“Tie each elector” doesn’t make sense to me. Let’s say you have 10EC and 100 voters in a state. A vote of 90/10 (in my mind) would lead to 9 electors for one side, 1 elector for the other side, perfect proportions. To get that final EC, the high side would have to get to 96 votes to make it 10 and 0 ECs (and 4 voters with no ECs to represent them). You seem to be saying that with a 90/10 vote, you’d divide it so that each EC got a 9 votes from one side, 1 from the other. Which is “district” apportionment without districts, or something? But that’s not what I’m talking about. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/238 "2020-09-18T20:14:05Z")
We’ve been around this a few times, in this thread alone, so yes, been thought through. I assume you did not read the thread? The first is that urban areas are not homogeneous. Different cities want different things, so they would not necessarily control anything, not unless they formed a coalition. Then there is the fact that, with an EC, all the rural people of California are entirely ignored. They have ideas and candidates that they want to bring to the table, but cannot. Then of course, there is the fact that to do it otherwise means that the country’s rural areas are in control of every election. As far as taxation without representation, you still have the legislature, so you are represented, even if not by president. And if this is a problem, then wouldn’t it be a problem that the majority are not represented? You want ranked choice voting, I’m down for that. ---
**Author:** ![Dark\_Sponge](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dark_sponge/32/121_2.png) [@Dark\_Sponge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dark_Sponge)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/239 "2020-09-18T20:21:50Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > …Then of course, there is the fact that to do it otherwise means that the country’s rural areas are in control of every election. > > As far as taxation without representation, you still have the legislature, so you are represented, even if not by president. And if this is a problem, then wouldn’t it be a problem that the majority are not represented? Rural areas would indeed be in control of the presidency if all states had an equal vote in the election. But this is not the case. States with higher populations have greater power in the EC to attempt to equal it out. I agree it’s still not 100% fair I was specifically talking about the popular vote giving de-facto control to urban areas. Naturally if part of the legislator still exists which does not use the popular vote it would not be affected. Even if it was only for the presidential election it would still mean urban areas would be in control of electing every president. Yes, I think this would be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2020, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262/240 "2020-09-18T20:24:09Z")
> [@Dark\_Sponge](#): > > We would be going back to taxation without representation. That is false. It’s a total misunderstanding of what “representation” means. > [@Dark\_Sponge](#): > > I’d prefer they were equal but I’d much rather have all of them count in varying degrees vs some not be counted. Who has suggested any votes not be counted? If a person votes, but their candidate loses, you understand their vote still counted, right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/electoral-college-v-popular-vote-how-big-is-too-big/920262.md?page=13)