(October 10, 2017 at 12:47 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And because the # of Representatives varies by population, your "point" (which is simply a weak attempt at an "aha!" moment) does nothing to change my point, that the EC equalizes the influence of small and large states.
You're paranoid. I'm just being informative.
No, the EC does not equalize the states. It favors small states. It was designed to do so.
https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20...nt-page-1/
Quote:One of the many unusual features of the Electoral College established by Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution is the provision that specifies that each state shall have “a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
The one obvious consequence of this provision is to enhance the influence of the smaller states in the selection of the president. Because of this provision, smaller states are disproportionately represented in the Electoral College. For example, the 12 smallest states today—Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming together account for only 17 (of 435) representatives in the House, or 3.9% of the total. However, in the Electoral College, thanks to the “Senate bump,” the same states account for 41 electoral votes, or 7.6% of the total of 538.
Here's a book you can read:
https://www.amazon.ca/Summer-1787-Men-In...0743286936