You are, once again, assuming that urban areas are homogeneous. Shouldn’t conservatives that live in urban areas get a say, or should their votes be ignored because they live in a city?
You are technically right, of course; I was speaking in de facto terms. ‘Counted’ is the wrong word. ‘Could affect change’ is better.
-k9bfriender
More liberals live in do urban areas (and I am a conservative) but that wasn’t the only issue I was talking about. If in an alternate universe only the votes of the largest cities were counted the needs of people living in rural areas could be brushed off by the majority. For a presidential election this might mean their election promises and commitments would only cater to urban areas. It might mean they had to keep urban citizens happy to get reelected (at the expense of others)
Right, but in an alternate universe, just like out own, but without an EC, then it would not only be the votes of the largest cities that are counted. Not sure what your hypothetical universe has to do with it.
But why is rural vs urban the crucial division that must be accounted for?
According the current vote system, whites will de-facto win every election. Shouldn’t we arrange the system for counting votes to give more representation to voters of color?
Incidentally given that the rural states are largely white, the current system exacerbates this effect.
Based on the racial demographics of the states I went ahead and calculated how much representation a voter of each race has under the current system relative to what they would have with one person one vote. (note this doesn’t take into account the discrepancies in voting participation, nor the winner take all aspects of the EC.)
In the senate,
Hispanic count as 0.66 voters
Non-hispanic whites count 1.13 voters
Non-hispanic Blacks count 0.84 voters
Non-hispanic Asians count 0.77 voters
and American Indicns count 2.24 voters (Indian tribes are primarily located in low population states)
In the EC things are better but still trend the same
Hispanics votes count as 0.93 voters
Non-hispanic whites count 1.03 voters
Non-hispanic Blacks count 0.98 voters
Non-hispanic Asians count 0.96 voters
and American Indians count 1.21 voters
That’s a great question, perhaps even THE question which caused the EC in first place.
My guess is it originally had no reason beyond, “I want the population of my state to be able to affect change even if they have a lower population than other states.”
For my reasoning I’d argue meeting the needs of people living in a particular area are pretty much the same, regardless of each person’s race, religion, etc. In regards to meeting needs and delivering services urban areas on opposites sides of the country are more similar to each other than the rural areas around them. This naturally leads to urban areas wanting similar things as other urban areas and rural areas wanting similar things as other rural areas.
The name (not the numbers) was an error on my part. It should have read “Votes to Win Each Elector Except Last”, “Votes to Win All Electors Except Last”, and “Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector”.
I think if you look at the actual numbers for say, Maryland, you’ll understand that this matches what you are saying. Maryland has 10 EC votes, and according to my calculations, all ten electors will go to a candidate who wins 2,169,174 out of 2,283,341 votes in that state (94.99%). ETA: Erm, I might be off by like one vote in some states.
~Max
Columns for Table 6a
Votes to Win Each Elector Except Last = Turnout / EC Votes
Votes to Win All Electors Except Last = Votes to Win 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 Win All Electors Except Last + Additional Votes to Tie for Last Elector) + 1
Direct Calculation = floor(Turnout * (EC Votes - 0.5) / EC Votes) + 1
Table 6a: Votes to Win, Hypothetical Proportional-Style Election, Corrected
State EC Votes Turnout Votes to Win Each Elector Except Last Votes to Win 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
This particular sentence seems to be a complete non-sequitur. As a matter of fact, tot only have we actually elected state representatives, U.S. Representatives, Senators, a Vice President, and a President who is not white, but a national popular vote would still leave whites with ~60% of the vote. Perhaps you meant to write disproportionately instead of de-facto.
~Max
I’m sorry to say that the question of “How Big Is Too Big?” is now moot. You see, last night on Tucker Carlson’s show, Steve Bannon stated that he had drilled down on the cross tabs and decided that Trump would almost surely win the election. Now, I’m not talking about any old tabs, mind you, like the secondary tabs or even the auxiliary tabs. Oh no, I am taking about the goddamned cross tabs. And he didn’t just make a cursory glance at them, he drilled down on the fuckers. Once a man with the integrity of Steve Bannon does such a thing, need one look elsewhere for evidence of who will win the election? I think not! Just one thing: what the hell is a cross tab?!
Is it like a guitar thing?
It’s a kind of table you use to represent data, where the rows represent one filter on the data and the columns represent a second filter. For example, let’s say you ask a bunch of people who they want to vote for and what their gender is. There are multiple ways to represent that data, for example you could do a histogram. Or you could use a cross-tab like this:
If the Presidential election were held today, who would you vote for? (numbers made up)
- Total Men Women Donald Trump 48.5% 55% 42% Joe Biden 45% 40% 50% Other 3% 1% 5% Don’t Know 3.5% 4% 3%
~Max
I was just matching this post’s language
Somehow I linked to the wrong post.
What the hell is going on with my ability to correctly link 
The above post was in reply to this one.
Hey, it happens. In my post, “tot” was supposed to read “not”.
~Max
The needs of the minority could always be brushed off by the majority, in theory. How is that worse than the current system, where the needs of the majority can be brushed off by the minority?
As always, the EC defenders rely on just completely ignoring the fact that the way a country works in defending the interests of minorities is not by getting rid of democracy. It’s by having LAWS. You know, the Constitution. Federal divisions of powers. Delegating tasks and powers to lower levels of government. Having states. Surely it’s obvious that democracies, even the many democracies that elect the head of state by popular vote, do a better job meeting the needs of minorities than countries that aren’t democracies?
Thanks for the explanation, Max. 
My post was a lighthearted attempt to make fun of Bannon, who looks at something I am pretty sure 99.9% of the viewing public has never heard of, in attempt to make things look good for Trump, when in the end that specific data can essentially be ignored, and simple “who will you vote for” polls are all we need to look at. It’s like all these stories Steve Kornacki and others do, about who is getting the under 3o year old Latino votes in states that have only one vowel in their name, or the percentage of urban white oyster farmers who will vote for the Green Party dog-catcher in their city. It may be interesting as a subject, and certainly if I were working on a campaign somewhere I’d want to study this kind of thing all I can, but in the end, every vote counts the same.
Oh, shit, thanks for reminding me. Enough of this, I’ve been meaning to learn a few new guitar pieces. Any good tablature links you can recommend?
To be honest I don’t really know anything about guitar. The only instrument I’ve ever played is piano when I was growing up. I barely know enough about music to even make that joke.
Like my vote currently?
Right. We have minority rule in this country. This is preferable?
Gallup reporting yesterday that 61% of respondents were in favor of abolishing the EC. Only 23% of Republicans were, however.
This is probably an issue that will require something like 85% approval to reach the tipping point, though. Nice system we have.
I think it will probably only take both parties getting screwed by it within one voting generation’s lifetime. So far it’s only one party getting screwed, so it won’t change.
The unfortunate part is that the direction of the bias (towards rural voters) is such that it’s pretty unlikely that the GOP will get bit by it in the next few decades (although not impossible - remember there were scenarios in 2012 where it seemed possible Obama could lose the popular vote but get re-elected).