- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Under the current system, campaigns already ignore "entire regions" of the country, in favor of a handful of contested states. Such a system constitutes an invitation to election fraud, by placing national elections within a handful of precincts in a single state. You suggest that rural Americans would be ignored in a democratic system. I doubt that would happen in this age of electronic media; but is it not far more unjust that most big cities and states are irrelevant in national elections (e.g., California in 2000 and 2004)?
In re votes carrying unequal weight among the states, California had 33.9 million people according to the 2000 census, while Wyoming had less than 500,000. In 2000, California had 54 electoral votes, which equals one vote for every 628,000 people. Wyoming had three electoral votes, which equals one vote for every 167,000 people. Thus, Wyoming voters enjoyed nearly four times the per capita electoral weight of California voters.
Using the same method of calculation, a vote for Bush Jr. in North Dakota, together with a vote for Bush Jr. in South Dakota, carried roughly three times the weight of any two Gore votes in California in 2000. As a matter of fact, there are sixteen small red states west of the Mississippi whose combined population is less than California's. Yet those sixteen states commanded 81 electoral votes in 2000, compared to California's 54.
When you consider that the electoral college is a reflection of each state's respective congressional representation, you will more clearly understand why Congress spends so much of its time worrying about abortion, gay marriage, and the other concerns of the bible belt, and so little time addressing the fiasco in Iraq and the failure to catch Osama bin-Forgotten, not to mention little things like health insurance, global warming, etc.
