6MT.net Infiniti G35/G37/GTR Forums - View Single Post

chenga · 10-31-2004, 06:00 PM

I did study political science, and received a bachelor's degree in it. The electoral college was part of a compromise package needed to get the US Constitution ratified. Whenever you have majority rule, the minorities always worry about being ignored. In this case, the minority was the small (not heavily populated) states. 220 years ago, the states' had very different needs and goals. The economy was not tied together like the global economy we have today. People in the small states wanted to be sure that they would not simply be outvoted. Their greatest fear was that all the people in New York would vote for the New York candidate for President and all the people in Virginia would vote for the Virginian. This would create a New York-Virginia President/VP combo. Nowadays people don't just vote for the home-state boy as can be witnessed by Al Gore's losing Tennessee in 2000, but back then it was a legitimate concern.

So the electoral college system is there to give small states more power. When electing a President, each state has a number of electors who will cast votes for the President. The number of electors is equal to the number of representatives in the House + 2 for the number of senators in the state. Since every state has 2 senators, small states with few representatives in the house receive more "power" from the senators since they get these 2 electors regardless of population. Let me explain in numbers...

California, the most populous state, has 55 electoral votes (53 reps + 2 senators). Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3 electoral votes (1 rep + 2 senators). California's population is (according to the 2000 census) 33,871,648 people. Wyoming's population is (according to the 2000 census) 493,782.

What you can deduce from these population and electoral vote numbers is how many citizens it takes to "create" one electoral vote in the Presidential election. In this case, California takes 33,871,648 and divides it by 55 to get 615,848. That means every 615,848 people in California represents one electoral vote. In Wyoming you take 493,782 and divide that by 3 to get 164,594. As you can see it takes far fewer people in Wyoming to generate an electoral vote.

What this does is it guarantees that although small states may be outvoted in Congress because they lack the numbers to push bills through, the small states will have more power than the big states when it comes to electing the President. Since the President is the highest office in the country, the small states were satisfied that this would be a way for them to strike back should the big states ignore the needs of the minority.

Sorry for being long-winded, but that's the historical explanation for the electoral college system. Just thought you should know.

Ryno, it may surprise you that not too long ago California was extremely Republican. If you discount Gray Davis, do a search and see how many Democrat governors there have been in the 20th century. You don't even need all five fingers on one hand to count them

And of those four Democrats, only one won a second term in office.

Aside from that, California's 55 electoral votes aren't very strong. But that has to do with being in the Pacific time zone. I could get into the whole fiasco of moving the primary date if you'd like. California will be moving its primary back to June if you didn't know. We tried to move the primary up so that we'd be a bigger player in selecting party candidates, but the other states just moved their primaries to be ahead of our March date. Going last when the race is already decided wastes our votes. That's what happened before, and the other states made sure it was what happened after we moved the date up.

Dholly, if a tie does occur, I worry about a repeat of the 1876 election where Rutherford B. Hayes bribed electors to vote for him. Hayes actually lost the electoral college race, but won the Presidency by bribing the southern electors. His bribe? The end to reconstruction and a withdrawl of Union troops from the South. Could one of the parties stage such a coup in this day and age? Doubtful, but who knows...

10-31-2004, 06:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
chenga Over 500 Posts Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 944	I did study political science, and received a bachelor's degree in it. The electoral college was part of a compromise package needed to get the US Constitution ratified. Whenever you have majority rule, the minorities always worry about being ignored. In this case, the minority was the small (not heavily populated) states. 220 years ago, the states' had very different needs and goals. The economy was not tied together like the global economy we have today. People in the small states wanted to be sure that they would not simply be outvoted. Their greatest fear was that all the people in New York would vote for the New York candidate for President and all the people in Virginia would vote for the Virginian. This would create a New York-Virginia President/VP combo. Nowadays people don't just vote for the home-state boy as can be witnessed by Al Gore's losing Tennessee in 2000, but back then it was a legitimate concern. So the electoral college system is there to give small states more power. When electing a President, each state has a number of electors who will cast votes for the President. The number of electors is equal to the number of representatives in the House + 2 for the number of senators in the state. Since every state has 2 senators, small states with few representatives in the house receive more "power" from the senators since they get these 2 electors regardless of population. Let me explain in numbers... California, the most populous state, has 55 electoral votes (53 reps + 2 senators). Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3 electoral votes (1 rep + 2 senators). California's population is (according to the 2000 census) 33,871,648 people. Wyoming's population is (according to the 2000 census) 493,782. What you can deduce from these population and electoral vote numbers is how many citizens it takes to "create" one electoral vote in the Presidential election. In this case, California takes 33,871,648 and divides it by 55 to get 615,848. That means every 615,848 people in California represents one electoral vote. In Wyoming you take 493,782 and divide that by 3 to get 164,594. As you can see it takes far fewer people in Wyoming to generate an electoral vote. What this does is it guarantees that although small states may be outvoted in Congress because they lack the numbers to push bills through, the small states will have more power than the big states when it comes to electing the President. Since the President is the highest office in the country, the small states were satisfied that this would be a way for them to strike back should the big states ignore the needs of the minority. Sorry for being long-winded, but that's the historical explanation for the electoral college system. Just thought you should know. Ryno, it may surprise you that not too long ago California was extremely Republican. If you discount Gray Davis, do a search and see how many Democrat governors there have been in the 20th century. You don't even need all five fingers on one hand to count them And of those four Democrats, only one won a second term in office. Aside from that, California's 55 electoral votes aren't very strong. But that has to do with being in the Pacific time zone. I could get into the whole fiasco of moving the primary date if you'd like. California will be moving its primary back to June if you didn't know. We tried to move the primary up so that we'd be a bigger player in selecting party candidates, but the other states just moved their primaries to be ahead of our March date. Going last when the race is already decided wastes our votes. That's what happened before, and the other states made sure it was what happened after we moved the date up. Dholly, if a tie does occur, I worry about a repeat of the 1876 election where Rutherford B. Hayes bribed electors to vote for him. Hayes actually lost the electoral college race, but won the Presidency by bribing the southern electors. His bribe? The end to reconstruction and a withdrawl of Union troops from the South. Could one of the parties stage such a coup in this day and age? Doubtful, but who knows...