I understand that the electoral college provides smaller states with correct representation, but why do there have to be people (electors) involved? Why can't it just be a counting process?
No, it doesn't. The electoral college is based on the number of congressional seats a state has, which in turn is based on population. So the smaller states don't get a larger influence under the EC than they would under a direct election system. The US Senate gives smaller states a louder voice, not the EC.I understand that the electoral college provides smaller states with correct representation, but why do there have to be people (electors) involved? Why can't it just be a counting process?
It's indirect, but it does benefit the smaller states, because the number of electors comes from both houses and Senate seats count, too. So even a state with a really low population will always have at least three electors--two for their senators, one for their congressman. Theoretically, if I could declare my house a state with a population of one, I'd get two senators and one congressman--offices to which I'd probably have to elect my cats.No, it doesn't. The electoral college is based on the number of congressional seats a state has, which in turn is based on population. So the smaller states don't get a larger influence under the EC than they would under a direct election system. The US Senate gives smaller states a louder voice, not the EC.
I totally agree with you on this. I follow State politics way more than I follow federal. I had the TV on halfway listening to all the Presidential stuff, but I was hooked to the internet watching the local races to see what our House and Senate would come out as. But, I also work for a policy organization that is thinking of putting up a bill in response to a recent United States Supreme Court decision. What party rules each branch drastically changes the likelihood of the bill passing!I feel like I can have more influence in local elections, where it matters more if you come out and vote. Local politicians and elected officials have more immediate effects on the lives of the people in my community, anyway, and it's often possible to talk to them directly or get a personal reply to a letter or a phone call, if you really want to get information about them. Picking somebody for the school board or deciding whether to raise property taxes to pay for road repairs is something I feel like I can get a handle on and understand. The big-shot politicians in Washington... all I know about them is a bunch of campaign rhetoric, media coverage, and political promises.
You are correct. I hadn't gone through the math all the way in my head... 270 is not half of 435 :lol3:It's indirect, but it does benefit the smaller states, because the number of electors comes from both houses and Senate seats count, too. So even a state with a really low population will always have at least three electors--two for their senators, one for their congressman. Theoretically, if I could declare my house a state with a population of one, I'd get two senators and one congressman--offices to which I'd probably have to elect my cats.No, it doesn't. The electoral college is based on the number of congressional seats a state has, which in turn is based on population. So the smaller states don't get a larger influence under the EC than they would under a direct election system. The US Senate gives smaller states a louder voice, not the EC.