Remember when Trump said he wouldn't concede if he thought something was wrong? Funny how outraged he's getting now. Hypocrisy works both ways, I'm just not into memes.
Because California has a larger population. If Wyoming has 1.51% of the population of California, why is Wyoming worth 5.77% the electoral votes of California? It makes no sense.
Because Article II of the Constitution states that each STATE is allowed the number of electors in the electoral college equal to its representatives in Congress. After the Virginia plan (representation by population) and NJ plan (representation equal by state) was debated heatedly at the Constitution Convention, Roger Sherman of Connecticut introduced what is now known as the "Great Compromise" in which we would have a bicameral legislature consisting of 1 house based on equal representation and 1 house based on proportional representation. Wyoming gets 2 of its 3 electoral college votes because it is guaranteed 2 senators under the Constitution as is every other state in the union. It only gets 1 electoral college vote for the population of the state (the minimum it could possible have) compared to 53 that California gets for the population. Hope this clears up your confusion.
It doesn't clear up my confusion because at no point does that justify giving more voting power to less populous states.
Everyone gets 3 to start (based on minimum representation of 2 senators and 1 house member as set forth in the Constitution , plus DC is given 3 as well since they have no Congressional representation ). The remaining 385 are distributed equally based on population. Wyoming, Vermont, Rhode Island etc get 0. California gets 52 more. I understand how you came up with the 5.77% notion, but that is not the process. That number includes the original 3 votes given to each state that are effectively washed out by every other states 3 equal representation votes. The math is based on the remaining 385, not the initial 538. Every state in the Union starts with equal representation. After that, distributing the remaining using population is more equitable then say, distributing them equally across all 50 states. Then California would have far less, and Wyoming et al would have far more.
I suggest you then read up on the Great Compromise, NJ plan and Virginia plan. It is called a compromise for a reason -- if all states were given the same representation, the populous states thought it was unfair and did not take into consideration they had more people. If it was strictly by population the smaller stated felt that too much weight was given to states with higher population. So they met in the middle accounting for population but not solely on it for representation, I have ZERO problem teaching this to a bunch of 10-11 year olds, so I think you should be able to grasp it.
See, here's where you guys don't get it. I understand why they went this route. What I'm saying is it's bullshit and doesn't work in 21st Century America.
Why doesn't it work today? Because after 49 of the 50 United States put one candidate ahead then California alone tipped the scales in the popular vote? I'd say it's working exactly as the Framers of the Constitution intended it too.
The majority voted against Hillary Clinton. 48% < 52%. Republicans now hold WH, Senate, House, around 65 of 99 State Legislatures, and 35 or so Governorships. More states, more counties, more voting districts went red this election cycle. The largest stranglehold by one party in what, close to 100 years? They hold everything. Everything. The country is being run based on what the majority wants.
The Great Compromise was about representation in Congress. The problem with the EC isn't that it gives smaller states more of a voice, it's that if you win a state by a 51-49 margin you get all the state's EVs.
That is a decision made by individual States, not the EC. 48 States and the District of Columbia endorse that idea.
