Electoral College = Minority Rule: Difference between revisions
From WikiDemocracy
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Answer'''- ''' | '''Answer'''- '''116,999,963''' or 117,000,000 loser vs 37 winner | ||
'''Question'''- ''What is the largest difference in voter margin possible when the winner of the Electoral College loses the popular vote.'' | '''Question'''- ''What is the largest difference in voter margin possible when the winner of the Electoral College loses the popular vote.'' | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The answer is rather simple if one looks at the mathematical foundation | The answer is rather simple if one looks at the mathematical foundation | ||
of the system used to elect our president. | of the system used to elect our president. (Talk about a bug in the system! | ||
or is it an intention means of keeping the powerful in control?) | |||
It could be a whole lot worse. | It could be a whole lot worse. | ||
'''Is it easier to get the support of | '''Is it easier to get the support of 37 people or 117 million people? | ||
''' | ''' | ||
The mathematical structure of the Electoral College makes this a reality; | The mathematical structure of the Electoral College makes this a reality; | ||
| Line 28: | Line 30: | ||
The above scenario is based on the following set of assumptions: | The above scenario is based on the following set of assumptions: | ||
The winning candidate gets the support of 1 voter from each of the | The winning candidate gets the support of 1 voter from each of the | ||
37 smallest states, minus 4 of the 3EV states. Putting them at 270 | |||
The losing candidate gets the support of 100% of registered voters | Electoral Votes. The losing candidate gets the support of 100% of registered voters | ||
from the 10 largest states putting them at 256 Electoral Votes. | from the 10 largest states (4 3EV states) putting them at 256 Electoral Votes. | ||
Seems outrageous? That is a emotional value judgement, it wouldn't | Seems outrageous? That is a emotional value judgement, it wouldn't | ||
| Line 72: | Line 74: | ||
If I wanted to game the system; my bedrock policy would be to tax the | If I wanted to game the system; my bedrock policy would be to tax the | ||
10 largest states and give that money to the | 10 largest states (+4) and give that money to the 37 smallest states (there | ||
(or alternatively you could do the opposite). | is enough cushion in the EC to leave out the 4 smallest states, | ||
like DC, Vermont or Hawaii) (or alternatively you could do the opposite). | |||
But before that, I'd make sure I belonged to the party that controlled the | But before that, I'd make sure I belonged to the party that controlled the | ||
majority of small states. That party would then get the legislatures of each | majority of small states.That party would then get the legislatures | ||
state to decide where its Electoral Votes would go rather than the popular vote | of each state to decide where its Electoral Votes would go rather than | ||
or practice extreme voter suppression. '''If you think about it the Republican party | the popular vote or practice extreme voter suppression. Alternative | ||
is well on its way to achieving this goal.''' | I could just try to form a coalition of states willing to go along with | ||
my scheme in hopes it will add up to | |||
270 EC votes. '''If you think about it, the Republican party is well on its way to achieving this goal.''' | |||
</poem> | </poem> | ||
