The Electoral College

Happy to think with you today, Small note for accuracy, The college votes are 538 total. 2 for each state from senators, 1 per congressman and 3 for Washington D. C. 100 Senators + 435 Congressmen + 3 for D. C. Meaning a majority is 270 for victory. Here are the problems with the Electoral College, As well as Congress in general. 1. Electoral College Power Per Vote In some states, One vote is worth 3x or more of one vote from another state. Wymoming has 3. 6x~ the voting power of a Texan. (1) This goes far beyond "protecting the small states. " We have the Senate to protect small states. 2 votes per state no matter how small or large. I submit that the small states are protected by the senate. Each person from smaller states should not have 2x or more voting power than someone from a large state. It's ridiculous. As people from the United States, We get called out quite a bit for the 3/5ths compromise regarding blacks, Yet a Texas vote for president is approximately 1/4th of a Wyoming vote. This is injustice. The difference in voting power has much to do with the Senate being included in the EC, And the unbalanced current HoR. More on this later. 2. The House of Representatives member size has been capped since 1929. (2) The House of Representatives is supposed to grant large states and small states equal power by population, But it fails at this. The numbers of the HoR hasn't expanded since 1929 when it was frozen by law. When our nation was founded 1 congressmen represented 57k people. Now it is 1 congressmen per 747k people, On average. However, Some states have grown faster than others population wise and are being cheated congressional seats. This furthers the above disparity to the point it is now at, With Texans being worth about a quarter of a vote from Wyoming electoral-college power wise. The HoR should be expanded or redistributed to represent an even number of people. Many believe the state with the smallest population should be the scale we determine HoR seats with. This would go a long way in narrowing the gap, But the states that benefit from the frozen House will likely not support it. 3. EC destroys Minority Representation Currently in the electoral college the popular vote in a state gives the winning candidate 100% of the EC votes from that state (except for one or two states I believe). Since this is the case, Many states are locked solid democrat or solid republican. The minority from the large states have zero representation when it comes to the presidential election. This means if 55% of a state is Democrat, 45% of that state has no power when it comes to electing the president, And in fact, Are doing their party a disservice by bumping up the numbers of that state. Zero representation destroys voter confidence that their vote means something, And directly lowers turnout. 4. Small States are not Protected with the EC. Only a few states are. Because of the above fact, Where solid democrat states give all their votes to democrats, Those states that are solidly dem or republican are often ignored. In fact, 6 states received 2/3rds of the visits and money from candidates in 2016. (3) 96% of the events held were in just 12 states. This is seen time and time again election after election. As it currently stands, The president is only really selected by these swing states. (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, And Michigan) 5. Lowest Popular Vote possible for a Win. The lowest possible amount of the popular vote one can receive in the US and win the electoral college is currently 23%. (4) This means one candidate could have 77% of the popular vote and lose. This is due to the disproportionate voting power of states like Wyoming and the lesser voting power of states like Texas. This isn't something fixed with "minor reforms" as my opponent suggests. A 54 point landslide victory can currently be a loss. The EC is a broken system to the extreme. Voters lose confidence in the EC primarily during elections where the majority vote loses to the minority vote. I believe Clinton won popular vote by over 2 million and still lost the election. It is a travesty. To conclude, Our government could be defined in many ways, Unfortunately the electoral college leaves us with a frozen HoR, Disparity among voting power, And the only ones actually voting the president into office are the swing states, Who receive all the attention and benefits. You have to be able to tell me that there's nothing wrong with Texans getting 1/4th of the voting power of someone from Wyoming, Washington D. C. , Et cetera. You have to tell me, At the same time as you say the HoR is supposed to favor the large states, That it's ok that the small states are also disproportionately represented there because of the freeze. The freeze likely stemming from a desire to not rock the boat in the EC. You have to tell me that it's ok when 40%-49% of a state's population not only has zero representation, But the power of their vote is actively used against their candidate. You have to tell me how the EC protects the small states when 25 states received no visits from either campaign. You have to say that all of that is OK for you. I submit to the audience it is not fair in these 5 ways. Already, More than 5% of our elections have been won by the person who lost the popular vote. Elections in the future will be the same. Is it acceptable for only a few states to determine our President? Is it acceptable that 23% of the population could determine our President despite the other candidate receiving the other 77%? It is not. There is nothing wrong with the president being directly elected. It would increase voter turnout, Give the minorities in non-swing state a voice, Small states would even have more representation than they do now. The HoR could be unfrozen. 23% couldn't win over 77%. The President of the United States should be one who represents all of the people, Not just those in a handful of swing states. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht