Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trumpscum Won Because An Electoral Vote In Wyoming Is Worth 3 Times As Much As California (Original Post) TaterBake Dec 2016 OP
Actually, political scientists identified the US as a "civil oligarchy". It's not a democracy. DetlefK Dec 2016 #1
Then let's make it one. lake loon Dec 2016 #4
trump won because not enough people voted for hillary in Wi, Ohio, PA and Michigan beachbum bob Dec 2016 #2
Our system is a FRAUD. lake loon Dec 2016 #3
How much is each vote worth citood Dec 2016 #5
It's based on population SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #8
For the purpose of my exercise, I used voters citood Dec 2016 #10
Re: more accurately SFnomad Dec 2016 #14
Let me re-explain citood Dec 2016 #17
It doesn't matter how many times you "re-explain" it SFnomad Dec 2016 #18
Question citood Dec 2016 #20
I'm not going to play your games ... sorry. SFnomad Dec 2016 #23
Games? citood Dec 2016 #24
Buh-bye n/t SFnomad Dec 2016 #25
That strategy won't get you a good grade in debate class. citood Dec 2016 #26
Yes zipplewrath Dec 2016 #6
Californians are only worth a fraction of someone in Wyoming? That sounds like UNEQUAL Protection KittyWampus Dec 2016 #7
DU would love the EC if the results had been reversed Lurks Often Dec 2016 #9
I'd pretend your allegation valid also if it validated my bias... LanternWaste Dec 2016 #12
Actually, my husband and I were discussing this before the election Bettie Dec 2016 #28
speak for yourself. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #29
We aren't a democracy. Joe941 Dec 2016 #11
No, you made a common mistake. Kilgore Dec 2016 #27
It Is Ridiculous colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #13
yep. get used to bending over. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #30
The entire population of Wyoming is only slightly over 500,000 True_Blue Dec 2016 #15
Yeah. Wyoming's the problem. That's the ticket. Goblinmonger Dec 2016 #16
There is a middle ground, which most people are unaware of citood Dec 2016 #19
Population centers HoneyBadger Dec 2016 #22
so what? PEOPLE count, not square miles. I say that as someone who lives in SD. nt TheFrenchRazor Dec 2016 #31
The Electoral College empowers swing states, not suburban and rural areas Jim Lane Dec 2016 #32
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS A RACIST COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! uponit7771 Dec 2016 #21
AMEN! nt iluvtennis Dec 2016 #33
2 dakotas. make 3 californis, but then there will be 5 texases. pansypoo53219 Dec 2016 #34

DetlefK

(16,455 posts)
1. Actually, political scientists identified the US as a "civil oligarchy". It's not a democracy.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 10:59 AM
Dec 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy#United_States



Don't worry. The "German Democratic Republic" (East-Germany) wasn't democratic either. It was hardcore-communist.
 

beachbum bob

(10,437 posts)
2. trump won because not enough people voted for hillary in Wi, Ohio, PA and Michigan
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:03 AM
Dec 2016

too many democrats sat on their asses....or voted for 3rd party.....so we get what we get

citood

(550 posts)
5. How much is each vote worth
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:40 AM
Dec 2016

I've seen numbers anywhere between 3 and 7 thrown out to describe the disparity between various states. So I decided to calculate it.

CA - 5,589,936 for 55 EV, or 101,635 people per EV

WY - 174,248 for 3 EV, or 58,082 per EV

Ratio: 1.75 to 1

I think populous states where Clinton won with a narrower margin would yield a higher ratio. As far as I can tell, MA yields the highest for Clinton - 178k per EV. By quirk, the highest number of people per EV is the Maine split EV that went Trump - its worth 334k people.

Ratio WY vs MA - 3.0 to 1

Ration WY to Main (1) 5.75 to 1

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,350 posts)
8. It's based on population
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:33 PM
Dec 2016

not number of voters.

1 CA EC vote = ~698,000 people
1 WY EC vote = ~195,000 people

citood

(550 posts)
10. For the purpose of my exercise, I used voters
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:56 PM
Dec 2016

I think this more accurately answers the question of how much more a vote in WY, for example, was worth when compared to another state like California.

In particular, in addition to capturing the mathematical problems with population distribution vs EV allocation, this method also captures disparities that rise out of vote distribution in one state - i.e., your vote counts less in places with a large margin of victory than it does in closer races. Voter turnout by state also impacts this.



 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
14. Re: more accurately
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:45 PM
Dec 2016

The EC number is based on population, not voters. Your calculation is not "more accurate" ... it's a redefinition.

citood

(550 posts)
17. Let me re-explain
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:24 PM
Dec 2016

Here are a list of things that effect how much your vote is worth:

1. State population
2. State voter participation
3. Margin of victory in your state

You are interested in Item #1. I'm fine with that.

I am interested in all 3 items, all of which would go away in a national popular vote scenario. Are you fine with that?

Let me throw another wrench into the notion that the ratio is dependent on census population alone. The population numbers used for allocation of house seats, and thus the electoral college count ALL people:

Citizens
Felons who have lost their civil right to vote
legal immigrants
undocumented immigrants
persons under 18

Everybody counts in the population tally, but differing demographics among states could cause a large variation in the differential between population vs eligible voters. Then, if you really want to get particular, the population distribution in 2015 is very likely different than it was in 2010, when the last census was taken. Some population numbers used up thread were 2015 numbers - not 2010 census. So if you really want to use population alone, you have to formulate a way to account for the differential in population growth among states.

So back to my original math. If I wanted to say 'A voter in WY was counted a x many voters in CA, in the 2016 election', what would be the most definitive way to do it? I think the most definitive, defensible, calculable number would be as I have done it...being very open about exactly how that number was derived.

citood

(550 posts)
20. Question
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:35 PM
Dec 2016

True or False:

A vote in Wyoming in the 2016 election counted as much as 7 votes in California.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
23. I'm not going to play your games ... sorry.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:59 PM
Dec 2016

The EC count is based on population, not how many people vote.

zipplewrath

(16,692 posts)
6. Yes
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 11:47 AM
Dec 2016

This whole mess is a string of decisions by people who didn't understand the whole system.

The EC was created for several reasons, whose motives aren't all pure. None the less it held two basic concepts underpinning it. 1) The president should be representative of the "whole" nation, not just the more populous regions. So it attempted to ensure that the support would be "distributed" across the country. And 2) that we should have our votes pass through electors in case there was the need to moderate the will of the rabble so to speak.

Unfortunately several subsequent changes have destroyed all of that.

When we limited the House to 535 members, we started the process by which some states have way more representation than others. This is especially true in the EC because of the two senator rule. Since the House is no longer "equally" distributed by population as intended, the minority has way more power than ever expected or intended.

When various states started handcuffing their electors to the results of their state elections, it caused any aspect of "moderation of the rabble" to disappear.

The quickest, and I suggest most likely modification that could be made is to "disconnect" the EC from the congressional representation. In essence, return to the originally intended distribution of representation for the EC. Take the smallest state and they get one EC vote ( or 3 or whatever). Then, based upon population, each state gets a proportionally larger number of electors. We may end up with a total of 2500 electors or whatever, but they will be far more closely aligned with the population than what we have now. Yet, it will also be true that ultimately, one will have to have a truly national support to win. You can just rack up a lot of votes on both coasts and cruise to a victory. You'll need to "win" some states in the middle.

This could be further modified to suggest that the EC votes be divided within states based upon the results in that state. Again, it would help ensure that the EC vote and the popular vote was held more closely. That does tend a bit to undermine the "national" support, but only a bit. What it does do it tend to influence the distribution less on a state level, and more on a population density level. So states that are otherwise "strong red" would lose an EC vote or two because of large urban population centers. In reality, some of the converse would be true as well. The dems would probably lose a significant number of EC votes in California, despite "winning" the state.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
9. DU would love the EC if the results had been reversed
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 01:53 PM
Dec 2016

If Trump had won the popular vote and lost to Clinton in the EC, people here would be screaming how great and wise the Founding Fathers were when they thought up the Electoral College.


 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
12. I'd pretend your allegation valid also if it validated my bias...
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:06 PM
Dec 2016

I'd pretend your allegation valid also if it validated my bias... as long as we both realize that unsupported allegations and empty prophecies are the best we have to offer on this,.

Bettie

(17,083 posts)
28. Actually, my husband and I were discussing this before the election
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 07:24 PM
Dec 2016

and how difficult it would be to claim a real win should the EC be in favor of Clinton and Orange Hitler get the popular vote.

I suspect that a lot of us would be conflicted about that in a normal year, but this year, with Twittler it is far, far worse than with any garden variety Republican.

colsohlibgal

(5,276 posts)
13. It Is Ridiculous
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 02:32 PM
Dec 2016

The only political race anywhere where the candidate with the most votes can "lose".

The Dems should have gone after it big time after 2000. But of course they did not. Typical.

True_Blue

(3,063 posts)
15. The entire population of Wyoming is only slightly over 500,000
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:09 PM
Dec 2016

And only 20% are registered Dems. Too bad it's such a godforsaken state to live in, because it would easily turn blue if only 500,000 Dems moved there. California could easily spare that and still be a solid blue state.

I never thought it was fair either that California only has 2 Senators. Wyoming has more representation per capita than California does.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
16. Yeah. Wyoming's the problem. That's the ticket.
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:17 PM
Dec 2016

It was crazy how much time the candidates spent there. And ND. And Alaska. And SD.

You do realize that without the EC, nobody gives a shit about anything but about 8-10 population centers in the country, right?

citood

(550 posts)
19. There is a middle ground, which most people are unaware of
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:30 PM
Dec 2016

The electoral college (and congress) used to grow. States didn't lose seats unless the population actually dropped (so the loss of seats seen on NY for something like the last 7 census would not have happened).

But in 1929 the number was capped (with some exceptions later for AK, HI and DC).

This affected the differential in representation profoundly...undoing 1929 would land us somewhere in the middle between our current system and a nationwide popular vote.

 

HoneyBadger

(2,297 posts)
22. Population centers
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 03:40 PM
Dec 2016

What is "funny" is that states have population centers and the rest of the state is dead. I spent the year in a sleepy college town in Clinton county, NY, notable only as the home to a mall frequented by Canadians. Police work consists of lost dogs and missing wallets. Ben Stiller just visited town and drank at my local bar and it was news for a week. Hillary never came anywhere near. Trump had one rally, with long lines (people parked several miles away and walked in) and moderate local protesting (if there were 30 protesters, I would be shocked.) He actually had a second rally scheduled, but finally realized that it was not a good use of resources.

Hillary got 15,059 votes and Trump got 14,449 in the county.

Hillary of course crushed NY.

I would hate for candidates to only care about population centers.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
32. The Electoral College empowers swing states, not suburban and rural areas
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 01:04 AM
Dec 2016

As it is, the candidates care a great deal about Philadelphia and Miami. By contrast, they generally ignore New York City and Houston except for fundraising.

They also go outside those big population centers in the swing states, but, again, ignore such suburban and rural areas in the solidly red or blue states.

In a national popular vote, no one would win by campaigning only in "8-10 population centers". Per the 2010 census, the ten most populous Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (which are fairly broad geographically) had a total population of about 81 million, out of a national population of 308.7 million.

ETA: I took the SMSA figures from this Wikipedia article -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Census#Metropolitan_rankings

pansypoo53219

(21,722 posts)
34. 2 dakotas. make 3 californis, but then there will be 5 texases.
Thu Dec 22, 2016, 03:48 AM
Dec 2016

divide POPULATION and MORE electors. or can it. they did NOT do their duty.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Trumpscum Won Because An ...