| | | One of the issues is how the electoral college has evolved as the country has grown since its founding. I don't think that the Founders ever intended for a single state to account for more than one-fifth of the required EVs to win the presidency. California's 55 EVs represent about 20.37% of the EV pie toward 270 -- one state. That's a massive head start for CA on the other 49 states. While I appreciate the fact that most Californians are very liberal/leftist/progressive, not everyone in California is.
So, California's population of 38.3 million in 2014 was about 12.17% of the nation's population of 318.9 million in the same year. While I understand the EC math behind arriving at CA's 55 EVs, I still maintain that it's not fair for a state with 12.17% of the total U.S. population to hold more than 20% of the EV pie toward 270.
Of course, if the total electors are considered (currently 538), CA actually comes up short with about 10.22% of the total electorate, v. their 12.17% population (and I realize it isn't weighted against the total population). In fairness, some may say that CA is actually under-represented.
Some states, such as Maine and Nebraska, now allocate their EVs by districts, which is better, but an outcome based on the popular vote would be ideal in my opinion. Of course, that would have meant a Gore presidency in 2000. |
|
