The number of Electorial votes intitled to a state is equal to the number of their Senators (always 2) and Representatives (varies with population, but at least one) in Congress.
So, each state is intitled to at least 3 (two Senators, and at least one Representative) Electorial votes, no matter how small the population is.

Conversely, this effect can be lessen to a degree by increasing the total number of Representatives in the House to about 1,000; and this would not require a Constitutional Amendment.

That still doesn't fix the problems with the EC with the votes not actually being representative of the people that live in the state.

Furthermore, something like increasing the number of representatives to 1000 would create problems of its own. We currently only have roughly 200 someodd representatives, can you imagine the logistical nightmare if we increased that number by 5? That isn't even remotely a viable solution to the problem.

Errr ummmmm. Factcheck: We currently have 435 some odd Representatives.



So the number would be increased by just over 2, not 5.

Having said that, earlier in this debate, a couple of us pointed out that our system is a Federal Republic. A union of soveriegn States. As our Constitution lays it out, some things are universal to all States, some things are left to each State, and some things are left to the people (respectively).

Under our system, each State collectively chooses who it wants to be President. And the value of each States choice is based upon their population (as a proportion of the National total).

Just so we understand where we've come from and where we are at, let's all stop and remember that this is the United States of America. It's not "America". It's not the "Democracy of America". It's the United States of America!

This country might not have been formed, had the interests of the individual States and people as sovereign, been subjugated to rule by the National majority (I.E. the "Bill of Rights". Also see the "Anti Federalist" papers).

Fast forward to 2004, so much for the "diversity" so hallowed by some. The will of the majority among the more "government reliant" multitudes of several urban population centers scattered between a few States (primarily on the east and west coasts) should be the arbitors of how everyone in the "Nation" lives there lives (including those "backwards" folks who happen to reside in that 80% of the nation known as "fly-over" country)?

Why don't we just shuck off this antiquated notion of States altogether? We are almost there anyway! For example, my State (California) legalized the production and use of Marijuana for medicinal purposes a few years ago, but that didn't (and doesn't) stop the "National" (Federal) government from ignoring our (Californians) elective will. Then Democrat Bill Clinton and now Republican George Bush continue to imprison these ""National" criminals.

But back to the question...On this thread there has been plenty of "one man one vote" arguments that seem to ignore that that is exactly the system we now have on a State by State basis. We are citizens of States and then citizens of the "United States of America". I respect the notion that there are some who would prefer a purely "democratic" system that ruled over all 300 million of us and an abandonment of such "divisive" concepts as "State lines", and I'm also glad that there is a document that (to a degree) thwarts such preferences. The Founders were truly were brilliant!

I knew I was going to be wrong there, so thanks for the fact check but my point still holds. The number of representatives we have currently is barely managable, increasing them surely won't do us any good.


Allowing states to vote for the president in proportion to the popular votes the president receives doesn't abrogate the right of states, because states themselves really have no interest in who is designated president, it is the people who live there that do.

You make arguments against majority rule in your post, yet here you ultimately concede to it by suggesting that the majority of the people in a state should decide how the votes for the president are allocated. That is an inherently unfair system and really has absolutely nothing to do with states rights as you are suggesting in your argument. It has everything to do with some of the inherent flaws of the electoral college which was created based on some assumptions on the part of the founding fathers which no longer hold true today.