The Conservative wrote:By your own spreadsheet, look at the populations, if you get rid of the EC, how many states do you require to have a majority? Think about that for a second... that would mean that instead of going to all 50 states, you'd go to 7 to perhaps 12 at most...
That is the minority controlling the majority... ever hear of wag the dog by the tail? Same concept...
That why I was talking about House of Representative seats, I'm not arguing the case that the Electoral College screwed everyone over this election, but I am pointing out where the flaws come from. I don't think the EC is the problem, as I prove below.
My original question for those saying scrap it or keep it, is if there was a migration event that caused a big state to have half it's population move, would that change your opinion. Since the house seats are based on the census, every 10 years, you could end up with a
huge anomaly for 2 presidential elections where 1 state's votes are worth 2 to 4 times as much as the rest of the country.
In general, representation in Congress, per citizen, is set up very poorly. This issue then affects the electoral college, so that some votes are worth more than others.
When it comes to the Electoral College, the
winner take all rules are where you get the popular vote discrepancies. That is a separate topic all together.
I ran the numbers for constitutional House seat allocation, and set up the Electoral College accordingly. Trump still won:
Current allocation:
Trump: 306 (56.88%)
Clinton: 232 (43.12%)
Constitutional allocation:
Trump: 5872 (56.43%)
Clinton: 4533 (43.57%)
edit: updated for Maine's split EV
