Can you remind me why the EC has a built in advantage for republicans? Is it similar to the senate where states Wyoming must have at least one delegate and therefore Wyoming has more sway than they should?
Sparsely populated states like the Dakotas have more votes than their population proportionally should have.
Take North Dakota vs California, for example:
North Dakota has 3 electoral votes, California has 54
North Dakota’s population is about 784K, and California 39 million, or about 50 times North Dakota’s population
If California had proportional electoral representation to ND’s based on their population, it would have 150 electoral votes to ND’s 3.
Also Southern/conservative states mostly take away the right to vote from felons for life, and therefore a large chunk of the African American vote is ineligible because of disproportionate policing of those communities. Among other problems with AAs’ access to their voting rights, like gerrymandering, fewer polling stations, etc.
Can you remind me why the EC has a built in advantage for republicans? Is it similar to the senate where states Wyoming must have at least one delegate and therefore Wyoming has more sway than they should?
Yes, that’s pretty much it.
Sparsely populated states like the Dakotas have more votes than their population proportionally should have.
Take North Dakota vs California, for example:
North Dakota has 3 electoral votes, California has 54
North Dakota’s population is about 784K, and California 39 million, or about 50 times North Dakota’s population
If California had proportional electoral representation to ND’s based on their population, it would have 150 electoral votes to ND’s 3.
Also Southern/conservative states mostly take away the right to vote from felons for life, and therefore a large chunk of the African American vote is ineligible because of disproportionate policing of those communities. Among other problems with AAs’ access to their voting rights, like gerrymandering, fewer polling stations, etc.