99% of Americans Underrepresented in Congress and Electoral College

by Chris Bowers, Tue Aug 17, 2004 at 01:44:26 PM EDT

Brendan Loy notes an obvious flaw in American democracy:In case anyone doubts that the Electoral College has its problems, and that those problems tend to favor Republicans in the current political climate, I would like to point out a few statistics that I uncovered while researching this topic over the weekend to prove a point to Becky's brother, Casey.

First off, take a look at the 11 "red states" that make up the heart of the solid Republican Mountain West and Great Plains: Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. Combined, they have a population of 18,671,566.

Now take a look at New York state. It has a population of 18,976,457. Almost identical -- actually just over 300,000 more.

Well, guess what, folks? New York has 33 electoral votes. Those eleven states have a combined total of 52.

As a lifelong resident of large states (New York and Pennsylvania), I have always thought that the Electoral College and Congress were anything but examples of equal representation. Delaware, half the size of Philadelphia and smaller than each of the three suburban counties adjacent to Philadelphia, gets two Senators, while the Philadelphia area gets around 2/3's of one (and considering the way our voting habits differ from the rest of Pennsylvania, right now we get zero). And yet, despite the obvious representational bias in favor of residents of small states, we crow about our great democracy to the rest of the world? Bah! Tell that to me when I have equal representation.

However, as Kuff notes, our system is not just railroading large states like New York and Pennsylvania with what borders on a three-fifths compromise. In fact, every single state is getting screwed except the four smallest:

Q . Which state is most over-represented in the Electoral College?

The answer is Wyoming, whose 3 electoral votes cover just over 500,000 people, or about 167,000 per person. California, with over 35 million people and 53 electoral votes, has a ratio of one EV to nearly 670,000 people.

They're not the most screwed in terms of Congressional representation, though. That dubious honor falls on Montana, whose population of 917,000 is nearly double Wyoming's, but they both have one solitary member in the House. Delaware, South Dakota, Utah, and Mississippi all have over 700,000 people per representative as of the 2000 reallocation.

Kuff goes on to provide a spreadsheet that shows how many members of Congress each state would have if they were all treated equally. Here in Pennsylvania, we would have six more. In New York, there would be nine more. In California, there would be sixteen more. And its not just Gore states either. In fact, if population determined Congressional representation rather than land area, both Bush and Gore states would gain a total 67 new representatives each in the House alone. The 99% of the country that does not live in the four smallest states is not being treated equally.

I do not think we should abolish states, but population should determine Congressional representation and Presidential votes, not land area. It should be one person, one vote. After all, that is the way democracy works.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Comments

16 Comments

Sort by

permalink

It's not quite that simple

Your point in terms of congress is mathematically correct but it isn't quite that simple regarding EVs (which are winner take all, and for good reason because if not several states would be guaranteed of a 2-2 deadlock unless there were a blowout). From a dkos comment I left on why it isn't quite so clear cut:

"The small states may have more power in terms of EV per person but in a winner take all system, its the big states that count. Also weighted vote systems can ahve funny effects.
Let's say the US had 4 States: MD, TX, MI, and NY.

Lets say new york had a population of 40, TX had population of 40, MI had a population of 15, and MD of 5. Now lets say that NY has 4 EV, TX has 4, MI has 1.4, and MD has .6. In this situation MD has a higher number of EV per person that MI but MI has more power than MD because MD's electoral votes never matter (no winning combination can hinge on MD, its just extra).

This is over simplified but my point is essentially weighted voting systess dont mean that a state doesnt have power equivlent to its ration of EVs to toal Evs (flashback to Math Mod/Sim from senior yr...wish I stil lhad the text, it did a callculation of power quotients and the electoral colelge; annyone who could find a table on this that is update would be the recipient of many thanks from me). "

A popular vote is the real solution (although it would make election night less exciting for us political junkies).

by Lavoisier1794 2004-08-17 03:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree

And, in fact, this very argument almost scuttled our Constitution before it ever got signed. Representatives from big states, like New York, argued for representation strictly proportional to population, as Chris does here (perhaps that makes him the Gouverneur Morris of the blogosphere). Representatives from small states rightly feared that their voices would be drowned out by the overwhelming population of states like New York, and got a compromise in the representation-by-state Senate. It was, however, a bitter fight, and apparently continues today.

I don't like that the red states are (arguably) over-represented. But their redness is just the current state of affairs. I fear handing overwhelming power to certain states much more than I fear giving rural America a voice in the running of the country. After all, what happens when we go to completely population-based representation and New York, Ohio, and Illinois turn deeply conservative? Don't imagine that it couldn't happen.

We have checks and balances because they make it harder for one side to gain total control over the ship of state. The system of representation is one of those checks. We've seen direct democracy (the open ballot initiative system) screw up state after state (including CA and my own home of Maine). If we give up the idea of a republic completely at the federal level, we'd be in for a rapid and disastrous decline.

by rusty 2004-08-17 05:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Where I grew up

So-called "States Rights" were a euphemism for racist segregationist policies.

by clawed 2004-08-17 07:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 99% of Americans Underrepresented in Congress

Basically, people from small states want things to remain the same, people from big states feel cheated. I bet the last three people live in small states.

Not only does it mean my vote as a Californian is worth less (I posted the first comment, finally got an account), the Electoral College means that not only are large states unrepresented, but only CLOSE states are worth campaigning in (regardless of size). Nobody cares about Utah or Connecticut, because they are guaranteed to go one way or the other. If it was a straight popular vote, maybe somebody running for president would.

by Geotpf 2004-08-17 07:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 99% of Americans Underrepresented in Congress

I think those of us in "battleground" states of substantial size (I'm in PA) have a decent deal.

And also a potential Senate seat pickup (OK, I'm an optimist) and a tight race in PA 13 to win for Allyson Schwartz (who I see is now advertising on this site).

Should be a good battle.

by clawed 2004-08-17 07:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 99% of Americans Underrepresented in Congress

Its not just large states--Montana is the most screwed in terms of EV's.

by Chris Bowers 2004-08-18 05:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 99% of Americans Underrepresented in Congress

California has the highest population to EV ratio. What did you mean about Montana?

by freelunch 2004-08-18 06:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Don't Forget the Senators

Nice article - the first thing that struck me is that well, we forget the role of the Senators. EVERY state, regardless of size gets two US Senators. That was part of the Constitution. So in each of these cases, the automatic 2 extra electoral votes given to the states was factored in of course.

For example in the example given about NY versus the '11' red states, 22 of those 52 electoral votes are due to the Senate delegations. If you take 22 away from those 11 and 2 from NY you are left with 30 for the mountain west and 31 for NY. All of a sudden NY is overrepresented?

So while I do NOT disagree with the contention of the article, it does not completely reflect how the Electoral Votes are divided up. In order to have a true apportionment based on population only we would have to drop the automatic 2 electoral votes given to the states by virtue of its 2 US Senators. Then that opens up the whole argument of actual representation in Congress. Such a small state as Wyoming is overly represented by having 3 in their Congressional delegation. However a state like Utah only has 2 more electoral votes but has over 4 times the population. That is a bit deceiving though because Wyoming only has 1 US House representative and Utah 3.

by southerndemnut 2004-08-17 07:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

A bigger House

We could go a long way towards better representing voters in high-population states - not only in electoral votes, but in daily government - just by increasing the size of the House of Representatives. It's only custom and statute that keeps it at 435.

When the Constitution was drawn up, each House member represented roughly 37,000 voters. By 1910, when the House hit 435, it was up to a bit over 210 thousand. If we used the same ratio today, the size of the House would more than triple. (This article - reviewing a book by Novak! heh - pegged it at 1303 as of 2000.)

This is a good idea from all sorts of directions, seems to me.

by tatere 2004-08-17 09:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Multiseat constituencies

If we increased the size of the House, we should consider doing it in conjunction with the requirement that states with more than one seat have multiseat constituencies (not just multiple at-large seats, but seats that are filled from a single voting list). Done well, we should see fewer safe seats and better representation.

by freelunch 2004-08-18 06:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Isn't that the point

of the Founding Fathers? They were afraid that small states would be steamrolled over by the big populous states. So they created TWO houses, one to represent population, and one for equal representation of each state so that tiny states won't be ignored.

by Inkan1969 2004-08-18 05:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Isn't that the point

I don't have a problem with each state automatically getting two senators.

It's the break down of Electoral College votes for president that I have a problem with.

If each House member represented fewer people, this would mitigate the problem somewhat.

by Geotpf 2004-08-18 07:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Isn't that the point

Y'know, I have no problem with each state having equal representation in a house of Congress. My problem is where the inequality comes in. I think we can all agree that the Senate is the more prestigious of the houses - otherwise we would call a Representative a Representative instead of a Congressman (who do they think they are fooling? We know they aren't Senators, or they would be calling themselves Senator!).

Anyway, I see it as the house that gives equal voice to Montana and Delaware as it does to New York and Texas, has terms that last for 6 years, and staggers the elections so that not all seats are up for grabs each election, allowing for a consistency to build up over time.

The house that is guided by population, has terms of two years and all seats are up for grabs each election, prompting Representatives to spend all of their time jockeying for the flashiest legislation as soon as they get into office, and then concerning themselves almost immediately with re-election campaigns. And there is always the (very remote) possibility that in November we could end up with 435 new members of the House, with none of them knowing what to do.

I just find glaring inequalties here. If we are supposed to have two houses that represent us, they should be more equal, not with one as a stepping stone to the other.

Joe

by timewalker2099 2004-08-18 09:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 99% of Americans Underrepresented in Congress

Acutally, I've written about this several times (although not here I think). The problem isn't really a matter of increasing larger states EV's to match the ratio of the smaller states in terms of population. The problem has always been that each state gets two free EV's for each senator, as well as one for each representative. Meaning, simply, that Wyoming should only be worth one. Take those away and those 11 red states now only add up to 30 EV's versus NY's 32, which might still be a little unfair, but is certainly closer.

One thing that is also important to point out here, though: this will never ever, ever change. It is a giant flaw in the constitution, one that was actually made to slave states at the constitutional congress just a few blocks from where I'm sitting now. But it remains an almost pointless endeavor to even try to change it (even though it should be). In order to change this, you need to find 38 states to ratify and ammendment to change the system, only there are well over 20 states greatly benefit from this in terms of representation. Even worse, they are mostly republican states, and when was the last time you saw a republican want to change something that wasn't going to benefit them directly before it helped anyone else? Plu-ease.

Oh yeah, and you can shove all those states rights arguments right up your corn shoots. There is a big difference between allowing regional governments be able to write and enforce laws of their own and those same regions turning around and writing laws for the rest of us, which is what W is doing right now. States rights should be kept to the states and should not have extra representation in federal level government.sign an ammendment

by Spartacus 2004-08-18 07:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

A Spokesperson for the Over Represented

I have to just poke in my own 2 cents, as an over represented constituent in a nice little Blue state.

I am not native to the area but it is very interesting to live in the capitol of the state that is small enough that one could say that you are only one person removed from every person in Dover. Any person you see stopped at a stop light in the car next to you knows someone you know. Dover, Delaware population approx. 35,000.

Sure, we have a whopping 3 electoral votes. Last time they went for Gore. This time, they are going for Kerry.

Since we only have one congressman, we don't have to worry about Tom "The Hammer" Delay coming in to show the state legislature how to carve up the discricts to get more republican congressmen.

We are not too sensitive about being mentioned as a small state in the media. West Wing script writers drop a pokey lil' ole Delaware reference in just about every episode.

Nice blog, here, guy.

by LowerSlowerDelaware 2004-08-18 06:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Democracy and Federalism

Well, the United States has a Representative Democracy, not a true Democracy (although with the number of propositions on my ballot here in California each year, it sure seems California is trying to make it a true Direct Democracy). The point is that my vote is worth less than people in other states-I have less say in who represents me in the House, Senate, and Presidency, than somebody in a smaller state.

by Geotpf 2004-08-19 08:23AM | 0 recs