But IASK,
My point exactly, is that the number of votes is
not proportional to the
population relative to the population in other states.
Here's what I mean - take South Dakota, which had 781,000 people on the 2006 census, and take NY, which had 19,306,000.
Ok, 781,000/19,306,000 = 0.4
HOWEVER, South Dakota gets 3 electoral college votes to New York's 31 --> 3/31 = 0.9.
Maybe I'm missing something or it's just me. But it seems to me, that if I'm not off base here, the effect of using the electoral college to seemingly represent population when, in fact, it does not proportionately represent population, gives the people of South Dakota more say in the election than they should have. To some extent, it is somewhat of an equal protection problem whereby each vote in NY weighs less than each vote in South Dakota.
However, if you take the sheer popular vote, then you get the true representation of who really won, and each person's vote is (theoretically) weighed the same, all across the nation.
Get what I mean?
Down with the electoral college. Those folk in South Dakota and North Dakota burn me up every election with their disproportionate say in who gets to be President.
If my memory serves me correctly, the move toward the electoral college was actually an attempt to protect the voice of the small states. I don't know if I remember correctly, but I think they are getting way more say than they deserve.
SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.
I agree, but LOL at that smiley. It gets me every time.
|
Threaded Mode
