bcretney at postmark.net
Thu Jun 14 17:51:18 PDT 2001
On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu> wrote:
> In this regard it should also be noted that someone's "voting power"
> defined to be the probability that their vote will be pivotal,
> state to state, and that contrary to popular opinion, the Electoral
> College system that converts states into voting blocs favors the
> large states more than in small states.
> This is because even though the smaller states have super
> representation, in many cases it is not enough to compensate for the
> voting power that comes from being a member of a large bloc.
> A hypothetical example will make this abundantly clear. Suppose
> Transfersylvania has three provinces P1, P2, and P3, with respective
> populations of 1 million, 2 million, and 9 million voting citizens.
> Suppose that in the Electoral College each province gets a member
> million of its citizens plus two extra, like the system used in the
> So the numbers of electoral votes for the respective provinces are
> and 11.
Let's imagine a country with an electoral college, and three
provinces. In this country, the electoral college grants no extra
electoral votes to the smaller provinces above proportionality.
The province populations are 48%, 48% and 4%. The give 48, 48, and 4
votes respectively. So, winning any two provinces wins the election.
A candidate is as concerned about winning the small province as either
of the larger ones. So, the small province is disproportionately
influential. I don't think that the advantage for large states in
your example can be generalized.
More information about the Election-Methods