Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (8266)	12/3/2000 1:00:58 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 10042

That negates your theory on "disproportionate weight" right there. No, it gives still disproportionate weight to smaller states, compared to a population-based weighting. It is just less disproportionate than a ten-vote-per-state scheme. Just like the Congress: The House is more or less proportional to population (though even here the ratio of population to congressman is not consistent); the Senate gives two senators per state, no matter how small. The Electoral College representation combines the schemes: one elector for each senator + one for each congressman. So Wyoming gets three electoral votes and California fifty-four. If it went by population, Wyoming would get one vote and California sixty-eight. In the current situation, if the Electoral College votes were aportioned by population, Gore would have won the vote easily, because the large states of the West Coast and the Northeast would have had more votes, in proportion to their populations.