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


 
March 14th 2002
Just because majority of voters hate you, it doesn't mean you can't win
Daily Herald

John Anderson is cited with his description of instant runoff voting (IRV), which would introduce majority voting and improve democracy.

August 20th 2001
Hard-won voting rights always in peril
San Francisco Examiner

We must break from the two-party system, institute proportional representation, implement instant runoff voting (IRV), and begin direct election of the President in order to truly level the playing field for minorities and women.

July 12th 2001
Preventing the next Florida fiasco
Daily Texan

The Daily Texan discusses the massive benefits brought by instant-runoff voting to an electoral system.

March 12th 2001
Reclaiming Democracy
The American Prospect

NYU law professor Burt Neuborne discusses a wide range of reforms, including calls for serious consideration of instant runoff voting and proportional voting methods

January 24th 2001
Meddling with Reform/A Clear Majority Winner in 2000
TomPaine.com

Rob Richie proposes instant runoff voting and proportional allocation of electoral votes at a time when national popular election of the president seems unlikely; John Anderson offers IRV as a remedy to the spoiler effect.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]