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


 
November 29th 2005
S.D. has little say in picking president
ArgusLeader.com

News article about FairVote's Who Picks the President report focuses on changes to make South Dakota voters a player in presidential elecitons. Runs on state Associated Press wire in several papers.

November 14th 2005
Group questions Louisiana's influence
The Louisiana Advocate

FairVote's "Who Picks the President" report generates interest for Louisiana columnist.

November 9th 2005
Primary reform good for Nebraska
Lincoln Journal Star

An editorial using FairVote's report Who Picks the President to underscore the importance of electoral college and primary schedule reform.

November 1st 2005
The Shrinking Battleground
Tom Paine.com

FairVote's Chris Pearson and Ryan O'Donnell argue that the Electoral College has a wide range of negative consequences for American democracy.

October 27th 2005
Parties should make direct election of president a priority
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

FairVote's Ryan O'Donnell argues that a genuine commitment to inclusion should impel both parties to think seriously about direct election for president.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]