this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1083 points (98.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
5846 readers
2389 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
TLDR:
Only 2 states to simplify things
Wyoming 3 EV
California 53 EV
56 EV total, 29 EV need to win
Wyoming still has more EV per capita
California wants Candidate B
Wyoming wants Candidate A
Who decides the election? (California)
If what you're saying is that the smaller population with more EV per capita has more pull in an election, then Wyoming would actually have a shot at making Candidate A win by themselves.
California has 53/538 EV.
California controls 10% of the total EVs
Wyoming controls .06%
TLDR again:
As a voter, being able to effect 10% of the total EVs is more powerful than being able to effect .06%.
You're missing the point. The viewpoint in the argument is from a single voter. One vote in wyoming weighs more than one vote in California
So you're saying that a single voter in Wyoming voting for Candidate A means more than a single voter in California voting for Candidate A?
In order for any of Wyoming votes to even matter, the two candidates would have to be at 268-267 and need Wyoming to be the tie breaker. It would have to come down as a perfect swing state.
California's 53 EV always matters. Harris had to win California to even have a chance at winning.
Neither candidate had to win Wyoming to win
Odds that California comes down to a 20m vs 20m tie or Wyoming coming down to a 250k vs 250k tie are basically the same.
Even if Wyoming was tied like that and 1 voter could make a difference. It would still have to be 268-267 EVs to even matter
It's possible to win the election with 22% of voters. Even if 78% vote against it. There's a great CGP Grey Video on it.
This is not a discussion about how likely it is to happen, but that the electoral college is unbalanced because NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME.
If you had been reading my comments, you'd know I know the electoral college is unbalanced.
It being unbalanced is the whole reason it exists
To make sure the high populated states don't always get what they want and give smaller populated states more voice
This is a discussion about how likely one voter is to affect the election
You are trying to make it not about that
The question is, "Does someone voting in Wyoming have more "voting power" than someone in California?"
It's like if I wanted Candidate A to win. Would it be better if I lived in Wyoming or California?
I've said before that someone in Wyoming has more EV per capita. "NOT EVERY VOTE WEIGHS THE SAME."
My point is one voter swinging Wyoming and then Wyoming swinging the EC, is never going to happen before one voter swings California and California's EVs just mattering like they always do.
Lower population does not automatically mean more "voting power"
That Pennsylvania, 19 EC 13m Pop., has more "voting power" than both California and Wyoming
Pennsylvania has 1/3 population of California. But 1/3 EC would be 17.5.
A single voter in Pennsylvania has higher chances of being the deciding vote than in California, and Pennsylvania gets more EV per capita.
19 EC is enough to realistically change the election. 3 EC is not.
That's why Pennsylvania is a "swing state" and Wyoming is not.