In the United States, despite what you might think, not everyone’s vote is equal thanks to the Electoral College. In the Electoral College, there are 538 total votes, and the presidential candidates need a 270 majority to win.
When a candidate wins a state, they get all the electoral votes in the state, regardless of the margin of victory. This means that swing states that could go to either candidate are where the candidates spend most of their time, but there is a catch to this, each state gets three electoral votes before you start distributing based on population size. This was implemented so that candidates can’t ignore them.
Places like Alaska or Delaware have 3 electoral votes despite the fact that they have roughly 1.8 million people split between them; places like Maryland, Missouri and Wisconsin have 10 electoral votes and a total population of approximately 18.6 million. Some quick math tells us Alaska and Delaware have a ratio 0.6:1 (people:votes) while Maryland and the others have a ratio of 1.86:1. This is stupid, it’s not a fair system, and it is disappointing, your vote is worth more in Alaska than Wisconsin. Why?
According to population sizes, California should have roughly 64 electoral votes, not 54. I understand this system is meant to protect the people by making candidates less likely to ignore less populated states, but guess what, less populated states are historically stable. This means that candidates already ignore them because they either have them in their pocket or it would take too much effort and time to get them. So, you’re more likely to see a candidate in California, Texas, and Pennsylvania, not only because Pennsylvania is a swing state, but because Texas and California combined are already worth more than ⅕ of all electoral votes.
That is why this system is arguably worse than the UK’s parliament voting system, which to remind you, is as accurate as a drunk man trying playing darts. Ok maybe it’s not that bad, but there are still three times in history where a president won without a majority popular vote, that’s an error of 5%. This system isn’t equal, and should be changed . While people may make the argument, “But without this system, the candidates will only spend time and effort on cities”, And to that I say no, you’re wrong, incorrect, and should look at a map.
In New York there are approximately 8.5 million people, in Los Angeles it’s closer to 3.9, Chicago has about 2.7, and so on. The top ten cities have a combined population of roughly 25 million people– that’s 13.6% of the total population. Not even close to the amount required to win an election and in some cases not even enough to turn the state that those cities are in, only New York on the technicality that it is a city that can vote.
To showcase how bad the electoral college is, let’s play a game. Imagine that you want to become president with the least amount of the popular votes. You’re smart, so you start with Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. These all have 3 electoral votes, which results in a total of 21. Then, you cover the states with 4 electoral votes: Hawaii, Idaho, Maine (may be split), Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia, for 28 votes. We continue this pattern to acquire the 270 electoral votes needed. You would receive points for the following states : Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon, Alabama, South, Carolina, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington.
This is a total of 270 votes, and they have a combined population of roughly 41.7 million people, which is 23.7% of the population; congratulations! Thank you so much for reading, and come back for more on the ACC Chronicle.
