More Race Hysteria from SJW's

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you're saying that Rhode Island and Cali have equitable delegations in the EC?

Of course not. I'm saying that RI has greater per capita representation in the EC than CA.

Don't you get this?

Of course I get that. But the EC doesn't work on a per capita basis. It works on raw numbers -- 271 votes gets you in.

California has 55 EC votes. Rhode Island has 4. Guess which state has more sway?

That's the point I'm making to A Theist, and apparently to you now. Eliminating the EC will not block those big states from exerting pull on the process, and indeed it will also make every vote mean more, no matter which state they're in, because without winner-take-all, which is the case in 48 of the fifty states, all votes for a candidate will be counted even if they originate in a state with the opponent garnering more votes.

Suppose that a large state has 50 representatives. It gets 52 electors - 50 representatives plus 2 senators.

Now suppose that ten small states have an aggregate of 50 representatives (i.e. aggregate population is the same as the large state). They would have 70 aggregate electors - 50 representatives plus (10 X 2) senators.

Ah, but because those states are broken up into various polities, it's not really winner-take-all for that grouping, is it?

And if they did happen to vote monolithically, do you think it's right for some votes to carry more heft than others?