Every vote for Harris and Trump is not created equal

会员登录 - 在线投稿 - 设为首页 - 加入收藏 - 网站地图欢迎访问农村日报网！

主页政策解读农村天地德孝乡村致富达人电商/企业民生关注基层建设传媒热点 English

热门搜索：湖北英山湖北鄂州警方诈骗案 ’ 及网络推介会绍兴分公司

当前位置：主页 > English 正文

Every vote for Harris and Trump is not created equal

时间：2024-11-01 04:00 来源：未知作者：admin 阅读：次

When Melanie Albert votes in Texas, she wants to have as much say as everyone else in whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump becomes the next president.

And yet, if she were to move across the country to Vermont, her voting power would increase by more than 70 per cent.

For Ms Albert, this highlights a problem with how the United States elects its president – the country may be a democracy but not every vote is created equal.

Melanie Albert lives in Sydney now, but still votes in Texas.

That's due to the Electoral College system, which gives more weight to votes cast in smaller states.

Here’s how.

When Americans head to the polls next week, they're not really directly electing their preferred presidential candidate.

Instead, their votes choose "electors" in each state – a group of 538 people who will go on to formally decide who's president.

This group is known as the Electoral College.

You're probably going to hear a lot about it in coming days, so it's worth taking a moment to wrap your head around how it works.

This mud map shows how the 538 electors — each represented by a hexagon — are distributed across the US.

In the lead-up to election day, each political party has nominated a slate of would-be electors in each state.

Generally, whichever party wins the majority of votes in a state also wins all of that state's "electors".

These people will go on to vote for the party they’re representing if elected.

As the hexagons show, every US state is represented by a different number of electors, which is loosely based on population.

But the key word there is "loosely".

In Texas, where Melanie votes, there are 29 million people, and they are represented by 40 Electoral College "electors".

In other words, each individual elector represents 728,000 people.

For comparison, if we combine the populations of these 14 states plus the District of Columbia, we get about 27 million people.

But even though their combined population is still smaller than Texas, these areas share 68 votes in the electoral college.

That's 28 more than Texas has.

So, each elector in these areas represents about 397,000 people. Remember, in Texas, that figure was 728,000.

"People shouldn't have to worry about where they live for their vote to count more," Ms Albert says.

So why aren't all votes equal?

Well, like so many things in the US, it comes down to the Constitution, which sets out how electors are allocated.

And that's based on each state's representation in Congress.

The simplest way to understand it is this:

The number of electors for any given state is equal to the number of House of Representative seats plus the number of Senate seats it has.
Each state's House of Representative seats are roughly proportional to its population.
But every state has two Senate seats, regardless of size. That's where the biggest distortion comes in.

In other words, the minimum number of electors a state can have is three — two to equal its senators and at least one elector to equal its House of Representatives seats.

So let's bring back that map of the Electoral College to see exactly how this plays out.

As we’ve seen, Texas gets 40 electors. That’s because it has 38 House of Representatives members and two senators.

In Florida, where Ms Albert used to live before a move to Texas, there are 30 electors.

Based on its population, the maths works out pretty similarly here — one elector represents 718,000 people.

Where the distortion becomes much more pronounced is in smaller states such as Vermont.

It has three electors, based on its sole House member and two senators.

Here, each elector represents just 214,000 people.

The Electoral College creates inequality like this all over the US.

Here's a snapshot of a few smaller population states:

Wyoming: 192,000 people per elector
Alaska: 244,000 people per elector
North Dakota: 260,000 people per elector

Now, take a look at how that compares with a few more populous states:

California: 732,000 people per elector
New York: 721,000 people per elector
Ohio: 694,000 people per elector

Does the Electoral College advantage a particular party?

Over recent election cycles, the short answer is yes.

Ben Reilly, a visiting professor at Sydney University's United States Studies Centre, says Republicans enjoy a built-in advantage.

"It seems to be weighted more against the Democrats than against the Republicans, and that comes down to this preponderance of small states having an advantage in terms of their Electoral College numbers compared to their actual population and numbers of voters," he says.

But Daniel Smith, an associate professor at the United States Studies Centre, says the Electoral College can help or hinder either side.

"There's certainly a perception at the moment that it favours Republicans and certainly the last two times the Electoral College and the popular vote have got different results, it's favoured Republicans.

"But about a year ago, there were polls that seemed to show Trump pretty consistently in front of Joe Biden in the national vote, but actually showed Mr Biden leading in the swing states.

"It's always possible that it can favour either side."

Analysis of recent polling suggests there's at least a small chance the Republicans' Electoral College advantage could flip this election cycle.

If the system is unfair, why does it exist?

Consider it a hangover from the very beginning of the US.

Back then, the only part of the government that was directly elected by popular vote was the House of Representatives.

The Electoral College was designed to be a group of elites who would choose the president.

"The Founding Fathers were all highly educated people, steeped in Greek and Roman political philosophy, as well as understandings of the English and Scottish political systems," Dr Smith says.

"They didn't want the British elite – they wanted to establish an American elite.

"Now, that changed fairly early in American history and from 1866 onwards, there were rules in every state that it would be the state's popular vote that determined who got its electoral votes.

"But it is still a system that can produce these very, very odd results."

Could they use the popular vote instead?

Ms Albert says her vote would "absolutely" be worth more if presidents were elected with the national popular vote instead of the Electoral College.

"I think it's a bit silly that we don't use the national popular vote to decide who wins," she says, adding that it might also encourage more Americans to get involved in the democratic process.

Over the years, more than 1,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced in attempts to reform the Electoral College — but none have succeeded.

A constitutional change would require the support of three-quarters of states, which Dr Smith agrees is a long shot.

"At the moment, Republicans will defend it pretty vehemently because they haven't won the popular vote since 2004 and prior to that, they hadn't won it since 1988," Dr Smith says.

That said, polls suggest Trump is at least in with a chance of winning the popular vote in 2024.

Perhaps the most likely way the system will end will be with what's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

That's an agreement between a group of states and the District of Columbia (DC) to award all of their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote.

But the compact is waiting for enough states to sign on to command the majority of electoral votes (at least 270) before the agreement is enacted.

So far, 17 states and DC have signed on, equalling 209 electoral votes.

They're all regarded as solid or likely states Ms Harris will win this election.

A further four states — Nevada, Michigan, Virginia and North Carolina — are currently in the process of passing laws that would see them sign on.

But Dr Smith's prediction is one state in particular holds the key to the success or failure of the idea — Texas.

It's voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980.

But Dr Smith says if Democrats could turn Texas blue, it would probably turn the tide for the idea of electing the president via the nationwide popular vote.

That's because California, New York and Texas would give the Democrats more than 120 electoral votes, making them almost unbeatable, even if they lost the popular vote.

"Republicans will suddenly see themselves as being at an enormous disadvantage and they would probably prefer to take their chances with a popular vote," Dr Smith says.

Of course, flipping Texas has been something Democrats have dreamed of for a long time.

"They believe demographic change will ultimately bring it to them.

"It could still be a long way off, though. The most optimistic poll that I've seen suggested that Trump is ahead there by five points."

For her part, Ms Albert says while that she's frustrated with the systemic issues in the US political system, she's had to tune out due to mental exhaustion.

"I think a lot of people my age or younger are very well aware of just how limiting it is and would love to see change.

"But the way the whole political system is set up, I don't see a change happening ever.

"You kind of just get really numb to it and don't waste your time on it because it will really affect you mentally."