Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
Political Science
How does a state population influence the weight (or influence) of an individual's vote?

How does a state population influence the weight (or influence) of an individual's vote?

icon
Related questions
Question

How does a state population influence the weight (or influence) of an individual's vote?

IV. Does my vote count? Yes, your vote counts. Some people have complained since 2000 that if the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president, their vote doesn't really count, so why vote at all? But every vote does count; it just counts in a more complicated way. When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state – but it may count more or less than that of someone living in another state! - What's a vote worth? Why does the actual weight of your vote vary by state? Remember that every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Co of Representatives is divided approximately by population have the fewest- more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone. gress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House - big states have the most representatives, small states but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have Consider three states: California (the state with the biggest population), North Carolina (a medium-sized state), and Alaska (with one of the smallest populations). This table shows their population and number of electoral votes in 2000. The fourth column shows the number of residents per elector (population divided by electoral votes), and the last column shows the weight of an individual vote in the given state elector compares to the national average. that is, how the number of residents per Population Electoral votes Residents per elector Weight of vote California 33,871,648 54 627,253 0.83 North Carolina 8,049,313 14 574,951 0.91 Alaska 626,932 3 208,977 2.50 United States 281,421,906 538 523,089 1.00
Transcribed Image Text:IV. Does my vote count? Yes, your vote counts. Some people have complained since 2000 that if the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president, their vote doesn't really count, so why vote at all? But every vote does count; it just counts in a more complicated way. When you vote for president, remember that you're voting in a state election, not a national election. So your vote counts just as much as anyone else's in your state – but it may count more or less than that of someone living in another state! - What's a vote worth? Why does the actual weight of your vote vary by state? Remember that every state gets a number of electors that is the total of all of its representatives in Co of Representatives is divided approximately by population have the fewest- more electors than small states, they don't have as many more as they would based on population alone. gress, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. The House - big states have the most representatives, small states but every state has exactly two senators, regardless of size. That means that while big states have Consider three states: California (the state with the biggest population), North Carolina (a medium-sized state), and Alaska (with one of the smallest populations). This table shows their population and number of electoral votes in 2000. The fourth column shows the number of residents per elector (population divided by electoral votes), and the last column shows the weight of an individual vote in the given state elector compares to the national average. that is, how the number of residents per Population Electoral votes Residents per elector Weight of vote California 33,871,648 54 627,253 0.83 North Carolina 8,049,313 14 574,951 0.91 Alaska 626,932 3 208,977 2.50 United States 281,421,906 538 523,089 1.00
As you can see, Alaska, a very small state, has far fewer residents per electoral vote than the national average, so individual votes cast in Alaska count more than the national average - has a little less influence than the average American, about 83% as much. A voter in North Carolina has about 91% the influence of the average American. (You can calculate weight of vote in a given state by dividing the national average of residents per elector by that state's residents per elector. Since we're comparing each state to the national average, the weight of vote for the entire United States is exactly 1. Don't get it? Read more about the math.) twice as much, in fact! A voter in California A paradox While every American's vote counts, then, your vote counts more if you live in a small state like Alaska than it does if you live in a big state like California. This seems like a paradox, because clearly a big state as a whole has more influence than a small state. If you're running for president, you are more concerned about winning California, with its 54 electoral votes, than you are about winning Alaska with its 3 electoral votes. As a matter of strategy, you'd probably spend more time and money campaigning in the big states than in smaller states. As a result, residents of big states tend to get more attention in presidential elections than residents of small states, and so small-staters may feel left out and unimportant. Yet in reality, each individual voter has less influence in a big state than in a small state. But is it fair? Ah, that's the question! It certainly doesn't seem fair that a voter in Alaska effectively has more say about who becomes president than a voter in California. But Alaska is a perfect example of why the electoral college was created. Because it's such a big state geographically, and because it is so far from the 48 contiguous states, Alaska has unique interests that, many would argue, deserve representation equal to the interests of New York or California. Other big western states with small populations, such as Montana and North Dakota, would make similar arguments. Of course, it's hard to argue that Delaware, which had 3 electors and only 783,600 residents in 2000 (for a weight of vote of 2.00), really has unique interests that deserve special consideration. The fairness of the electoral system has been debated for more than 200 years, and it doesn't appear that the debate is going to die down anytime soon.
Transcribed Image Text:As you can see, Alaska, a very small state, has far fewer residents per electoral vote than the national average, so individual votes cast in Alaska count more than the national average - has a little less influence than the average American, about 83% as much. A voter in North Carolina has about 91% the influence of the average American. (You can calculate weight of vote in a given state by dividing the national average of residents per elector by that state's residents per elector. Since we're comparing each state to the national average, the weight of vote for the entire United States is exactly 1. Don't get it? Read more about the math.) twice as much, in fact! A voter in California A paradox While every American's vote counts, then, your vote counts more if you live in a small state like Alaska than it does if you live in a big state like California. This seems like a paradox, because clearly a big state as a whole has more influence than a small state. If you're running for president, you are more concerned about winning California, with its 54 electoral votes, than you are about winning Alaska with its 3 electoral votes. As a matter of strategy, you'd probably spend more time and money campaigning in the big states than in smaller states. As a result, residents of big states tend to get more attention in presidential elections than residents of small states, and so small-staters may feel left out and unimportant. Yet in reality, each individual voter has less influence in a big state than in a small state. But is it fair? Ah, that's the question! It certainly doesn't seem fair that a voter in Alaska effectively has more say about who becomes president than a voter in California. But Alaska is a perfect example of why the electoral college was created. Because it's such a big state geographically, and because it is so far from the 48 contiguous states, Alaska has unique interests that, many would argue, deserve representation equal to the interests of New York or California. Other big western states with small populations, such as Montana and North Dakota, would make similar arguments. Of course, it's hard to argue that Delaware, which had 3 electors and only 783,600 residents in 2000 (for a weight of vote of 2.00), really has unique interests that deserve special consideration. The fairness of the electoral system has been debated for more than 200 years, and it doesn't appear that the debate is going to die down anytime soon.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer