Big vs. Small - Who has more clout?

While scholars argue that the electoral college favors, or is advantageous to smaller states, there is also an argument that it favors larger states.  Small states are 'protected' by receiving a proportionally high amount of electoral votes in reference to their populations, arguably giving them more clout.  See Providence Journal article on small state power

Simultaneously though, voters in large states have more power through voting potential, because they have the chance to affect a large amount of electoral votes with their raw vote.  As presidential historian Allan Lichtman explains, "you've got to have a majority 270 votes in the Electoral College to win, and you accumulate them state-by-state, with large states like California having the lions-share of the Electoral College vote."

According to Lawrence D. Longley and Neal Peirce in their book “Electoral College Primer 2000” (not updated in 2004), the states enjoying a higher-than-average advantage in Electoral College that year were the larger ones with the most Electoral College votes.  Note that this finding is in direct opposition to the broad assumption that smaller states have a greater advantage because of the Electoral College.  In descending order, these states were

California – 55 votes

Texas – 34 votes

New York – 31 votes

Florida – 27 votes

Pennsylvania – 21 votes

Illinois – 21 votes

*Vote totals are current for 2001-2010

Longley and Peirce also declared that those states with the lowest amount of clout in the Electoral College are typically those that are argued to be favored by it, including Maine, Montana, Nevada and Utah, each of which has 5 or fewer electoral votes

This data turns out to be extremely hopeful, considering that since only six states enjoy a large amount of influence under the Electoral College system, the remaining 44 might not put up such a fight when it comes to abolishing it.  Perhaps the key comes in convincing the smaller states of the greater advantage to them in abolishing the Electoral College.  Despite the loss of “clout” to smaller states without the Electoral College, they would gain a proportionally balanced advantage by causing the larger states to lose their massively overwhelming advantage in the system.


The Case for Reform

Electoral College Table of Contents


 
January 1st 2001
The time is ripe for real electoral reform. Why not try democracy in America?
The Hightower Lowdown

Major article about electoral reform with sections advocating instant runoff voting and proportional representation

December 17th 2000
Prof. Guinier writes on Florida and Proportional Representation
San Jose Mercury News

2000 presidential elections revealed the problem of american democracy, which can be solved in various way, one of them being proportional voting.

December 8th 2000
Formula for a Fair Count
Grist

The plurality voting in US violates basic rules of fair and democratic elections, when despite receiving more of the popular vote, the candidate still loses.

December 4th 2000
The Nation Covers Electoral Reform
The Nation

After the 2000 election, The Nation runs several articles criticizing poor voting technology, the Electoral College, the two-party system, and single-member districts.

November 16th 2000
Stand and be counted
Baltimore Sun

Presidential elections in 2000 were the great opportunity for Center and Democracy to take the message about instant runoff voting (IRS) to the general public.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]