July 2, 2004
60-40 FILES:
In electoral tally, small states wield out-sized power: Allocation of electoral votes tends to sap Democrats' big-state advantage (Tom Curry, July 02, 2004, MSNBC)
A candidate can win the White House — and Bush did so — by winning a lot of small and medium states.The Electoral College system gives a bonus to the small states: No matter how few people a state has, it gets two "extra" electoral votes, equivalent to its two senators. Thus the electoral vote is not exactly proportional to the state's population.
Wyoming, with a voter turnout of only 213,000 in 2000, got three electoral votes.
In California nearly 11 million people turned out to vote in 2000, more than 50 times as many as in Wyoming. But California (and Gore) got 54 electoral votes, only 18 times as many as Wyoming got.
The big states, where Gore got those lavish vote margins, are underweighted in the Electoral College and that tends to cost the Democrats.
Of the states with four million or fewer registered voters, Bush won 26 (with a total of 171 electoral votes) and Gore won 14 (with 89 electoral votes).
Even more important is that the GOP's dominance of so many states makes its natural level in the Senate 60 seats--a number it may well hit this November, but will inevitably get to in the next few cycles. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 2, 2004 10:02 PM
There's an obvious solution-- split those large states into smaller ones. Is there any reason that San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Fresno, San Diego and Redding all have to be in the same state? If Kansas City can be in Missouri, why does New York City have to be in a New York State? The Dems will get more electoral votes, and elect more Senators, too.
Another factor to consider is that there is considerable evidence that a lot of that "popular vote" in those large states comes from fraud. When you have precincts in Philadelpha with more registered voters than the last census with 100% turnout, or a Chicago miracle where every four years the dead rise to vote early and often, you have to conclude that something isn't honest. The Electoral College has the effect of limiting the rewards of such fraud. Once you've won the state, there's no point in running up the score, which would not be the case with a direct popular vote.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 3, 2004 12:29 AMI prefer to say that Mr Gore lost the election because he failed to win enough small states. IIRC, the margin was such that if Mr Gore had won practically any one state where he lost, he could have conceded Florida and still won the electoral college.
It's possible to win the electoral college with the votes of only eleven states. The electoral vote totals and his campaign strategy seem to indicate that Gore was going for an '11 state win' in 2000. I also remember several stories that projected Gore being elected with a minority of the popular vote. He was projected to lose big in the more Republican small states and narrowly win the Democrat large states.
Posted by: Chris B at July 3, 2004 9:06 AM60 Republicans acting like 60 Democrats would not be an improvement.
Posted by: at July 3, 2004 9:18 AMWhy not? If nothing else you'd get judges through.
Posted by: oj at July 3, 2004 9:21 AMThanks for the reminder about all that talk of a minority Gore victory, and would the VRWC accept it as legitimate. Gore could have won if he's carried his "home" state, too, something that even Walter Mondale accomplished.
Raoul Ortega commented, 'Another factor to consider is that there is considerable evidence that a lot of that "popular vote" in those large states comes from fraud.'
That is why it is called "popular." The politicians like it so much.
Posted by: Henry IX at July 3, 2004 5:08 PMRaoul: He did carry the District.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 3, 2004 5:56 PM