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


 
October 28th 2004
The electoral college is doing harm to our democracy
South Brunswick Post (NJ)

It is time to find alternatives to the Electoral College and enact reforms such as instant runoff voting and full public financing.

October 24th 2004
Election Reform Also on Ballot
The News Standard (NY)

A proposed amendment in Colorado would allow the state to distribute its electors to the electoral college based on the popular vote outcome.

October 22nd 2004
Electoral College Football
CBS News

The 220-year-old Electoral College may be the bane of Election 2004. If the Electoral College ties in a 269-269 vote, some outlandish scenarios become plausible for the election of our nation's highest leader.

October 20th 2004
A to-do list for the day after Nov. 2
Detroit Free Press

The 2004 Presidential election will leave many people disappointed, and in its wake, three key reforms should be purused: electoral college reform, instant runoff voting, and allowing immigrants to serve as President.

October 20th 2004
Loser take all? Our electoral rules demand reform
Knight-Ridder/Tribune

American voting system does not function well due to the antiquated Electoral College and winner-take-all rule.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]