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


 
August 22nd 2007
California Democrats push popular vote measure
Los Angeles Times

LA Times staff writer Dan Morain reports on the latest move towards NPV in California.

August 22nd 2007
Stacking the Electoral Deck
The New York Times

The Gray Lady's editorial board comes out against schemes to allocate electoral votes by congressional districts, and reasserts support for the National Popular Vote plan.

August 21st 2007
A critical reform in presidential elections
The Napa Valley Register

The author explains how the Electoral College allows a candidate to become president despite losing the nationwide popular vote. He argues that Congress has blocked past attempts to reform the system, but now National Popular Vote offers a way out.

August 20th 2007
In defense of 55 electoral votes
The San Francisco Chronicle

An editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle cites the bipartisan National Popular Vote effort, and its 364 sponsors in 47 states in contrast to the wrong-headed congressional district proposal being floated in California.

August 13th 2007
Will California alter '08 race?
Christian Science Monitor

The writer evaluates California Republicans' move to have the state's electoral votes awarded by district. He concludes that it is an unfair move that will benefit only Republicans, without correcting the flaws of the current system.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]