This is because California just blows the curve. If California either didn’t exist or was chopped into a few pieces the numbers would look dramatically better. Likewise for merging the Dakotas or Montana and Wyoming on the other end.
The method used to apportion the House is designed to minimize the average difference in Representatives/capita between states.
But yeah, any system in which California exists and states like Alaska or Wyoming have any meaningful power at all is going to result in California being under represented per capita.
This is functionally the same as someone in the EU complaining that Germany doesn’t have remotely enough power and Luxembourg and Malta have far too much, except that the EU parliament doesn’t have as broad power as Congress and you can leave the EU.
Your math for California is off by a factor of ten. California’s per-capita electoral votes would be 0.00000141025
There’s a minimum representation of votes (3) for statehood. In Alaska’s case there are a large number of natives who are directly affected by policy at the federal level. The state is also very important strategically for defense and energy production.
In Alaska’s case there are a large number of natives who are directly affected by policy at the federal level. The state is also very important strategically for defense and energy production.
Well you’re replying to me, so I’ll take a crack at it. The whole purpose of the federal government is to represent the states, and the intention of the electoral colleges is to balance their interests. If the national popular vote was the only thing that mattered, there would be almost no reason for candidates to care about policy issues that uniquely affect states with smaller populations like Alaska.
California - population 39 million 0.000000128205128 votes per capita
Alaska - population 734 thousand - 0.00000408719 votes per capita
So Alaskans count ~3x as much as Californians.
If the numbers are correct, it would mean about 30 times more influence, not 3
Good thing the number for California is not correct…
This is because California just blows the curve. If California either didn’t exist or was chopped into a few pieces the numbers would look dramatically better. Likewise for merging the Dakotas or Montana and Wyoming on the other end.
The method used to apportion the House is designed to minimize the average difference in Representatives/capita between states.
But yeah, any system in which California exists and states like Alaska or Wyoming have any meaningful power at all is going to result in California being under represented per capita.
This is functionally the same as someone in the EU complaining that Germany doesn’t have remotely enough power and Luxembourg and Malta have far too much, except that the EU parliament doesn’t have as broad power as Congress and you can leave the EU.
That broke in 1929 when they capped the house.
Your math for California is off by a factor of ten. California’s per-capita electoral votes would be 0.00000141025
There’s a minimum representation of votes (3) for statehood. In Alaska’s case there are a large number of natives who are directly affected by policy at the federal level. The state is also very important strategically for defense and energy production.
Can anyone explain how this would be relevant?
Well you’re replying to me, so I’ll take a crack at it. The whole purpose of the federal government is to represent the states, and the intention of the electoral colleges is to balance their interests. If the national popular vote was the only thing that mattered, there would be almost no reason for candidates to care about policy issues that uniquely affect states with smaller populations like Alaska.