this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1060 points (98.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
5821 readers
1812 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That guys vote counts the same as yours. Just saying.
If he's from California then my vote counts a little more because my state has less population. The smaller the state's population the more their vote counts.
Wyoming has the lowest population.
Makes sense why candidates spend all their time trying to get these powerful voters on their side. Those 3 electoral votes really makes it the most powerful swing state.
Someone in Wyoming has more electoral votes to their votes, yes. And I believe that is the point you're making.
If everyone in Wyoming voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has basically the same chance of winning or losing.
If everyone in California voted for Candidate A. Candidate A has a lot better chance of winning.
It's more powerful to be able to vote in something that actually matters than to vote in something that doesn't.
You could just not count any votes in Wyoming and still call the overall winner 99.999% of the time. It would have to come down to 3 electoral votes tie breaker for their votes to even matter. Whereas every vote in California always matters.
Like in this last election. If Harris won every "swing state". But Trump could have won California and he'd win the election.
Electoral college has It's pros and cons but "The smaller the state's population the more their vote counts." Isn't true.
It's the middle size, "swing states", that the voters have the most powerful.
You aren't a drop in the bucket like California, but your state has enough electoral votes to actually swing things.
It wasn't about how much the states electoral votes matter, but how much a single persons vote matters in the entire election.
If 50.000 people in California changes their vote it hardly matters. If 50.000 people in wyoming do that, it heavily influences the outcome of who wyoming votes for.
1 person in wyoming matters more than 1 person in California.
How electoral votes matter is the whole point. If it was done by pure population they would have equal voting power. They do not have equal voting power because the electoral votes matter.
1 person in Wyoming makes more difference in how Wyoming election turns out. Less population, more influence.
There are 538 electoral votes divided over 50 states
Wyoming has 3
California has 54
Wyoming has 584k people
California has 39m people
In Wyoming each voters has 5.137E-6 electoral votes to cast
In California each voters has 8.98305085E−7 electoral votes to cast
Now winner takes all electoral votes aside. Someone in Wyoming is contributing more electoral votes to their candidate than someone in California.
This is what's always argued when talking about voting power based on population
If the candidate needs 270 to win, if I am able to give more to a candidate with my vote, my vote is more powerful in a way.
There has been two elections decided by 3 electoral votes. 1876 Hayes and 1796 Adams. Total electoral votes at the time were 261 and 138, respectively. It would be equivalent to winning by 6 and 12 votes today with the 538 electoral votes. So while it was 3, those 3 votes meant a lot more back then when it was 3/261 or 3/138.
Like I said earlier, yes, Wyoming voters have more influence on who wins their electoral votes and they have more electoral votes per person
California with 53 electoral votes is a 106 point swing. Taking 53 electoral votes from the winning candidate and giving it to the runner up would change the majority of all the elections.
Think of it this way:
2 states just California and Wyoming. California has 53 votes, Wyoming 3.
56 votes total. Need 29 votes to win.
Biggest issue the candidates are running on is spending money on beaches.
Candidate A: For spending
Candidate B: Against spending
California wants A, Wyoming wants B.
If what you're saying is true, then Wyoming should have the most power in this election because each of their votes count more than a person in California.
584k deciding 3 electoral votes vs 39m deciding 53 electoral votes
Yet every single person in Wyoming could vote candidate B, and it's still going to be up to California to decide
So would you want to be a voter in Wyoming or California?
California because your vote doesn't matter in Wyoming. No matter who you vote for in Wyoming, California is going to decide. You want to be able to cast your vote in California to hopefully swing the state
If you gave those 584k Wyoming voters the chance to not cast their vote in Wyoming but instead cast their vote in California against the 39m, they would be wise to do it. Doesn't matter where 3/56 electoral votes go, it matters much more where the 53/56 electoral votes go.
So yes, while each voter in California has less effect on the California electoral votes. California has more effect on the total electoral votes.
Being able to participate in a more important election is worth more than having more influence in an election that is next to meaningless.