The recent presidential election has once again given the victory to a candidate who did not win the popular vote. And the people who support the loser have been complaining about this.
Now first, let me note, these people support Clinton, who got superdelegates far out of proportion from her popular votes in the primary. So for any supporter of Clinton to complain about how electoral votes should be proportional to primary votes, I have absolutely ZERO sympathy. In fact, even regular delegates are basically like electoral votes – they can, mathematically, mean that a person can win without winning the overall popular vote. So, no, I have zero sympathy for Clinton or her supporters. And in fact, I was rooting for Trump to beat her (not because I like Trump, but because I hate Clinton). And in the past, people have won the electoral college without winning the popular vote who have become presidents we now consider some of the best – Lincoln, for example.
But, what I want to talk about for a moment is not about the 2016 election or any other election. What I want to say is this: if you are complaining because the president does not give equal representation to each individual, you are misunderstanding the federal government’s design.
Here is the thing. If your complaint is that the electoral college does not give equal weight to each individual’s vote, when choosing the president, you are correct. But guess what. The entire federal government is chosen in a manner that does not depend upon giving equal weight to the votes of individual citizens!
Let us ignore for a moment the presidential election, and focus upon congress. Now, the House of Representatives gives a number of representatives to each state which is proportional to the number of citizens in that state. Therefore, the House gives roughly equal weight to each individual, in theory (that is, ignoring the fact that states can gerrymander).
However, the senate does not give a number of senators based on the number of citizens in a given state. In fact, the senate gives two senators for each state, no matter what the population of the state. Therefore, a state such as Vermont, with a single representative, gets two senators, the same as a state like California, with 40+ representatives but just 2 senators. Therefore, in the senate, a Vermonter gets twenty times as much representation per person as a Californian! In congress as an whole, a Vermonter gets 12 times as much representation as a Californian, maybe more.
In terms of the electoral college, this applies as well. Vermont gets 3 electoral votes, despite having only a population to attain one representative, while California still just has 40+ electoral votes. So, Vermonters count almost 3x as much as Californians – or they would, if states gave electoral votes proportionally.
The point is, if you want a federal government that represents each individual citizen equally, the US government was never designed to do that. The senate wasn’t designed that way. The presidential election via electoral votes wasn’t designed that way. The Supreme Court wasn’t designed that way, with it’s being appointed by the president for life!
The US was designed to be a union of states. And as such, it was designed to represent states, not individuals. Deal with it.
Now, I’m not necessarily agreeing with the design of the US federal government. For one thing I think people’s votes should be weighted according to their intelligence, with idiots getting far less say in federal government than smart people, and maybe with SJWs getting freely deported to the Islamic Republics that they claim to love so much. But, the people who complain about the electoral college often claim to do it based upon their love of equal representation for each citizen, and also claim that the US is built upon that principle. And it was NOT built upon that principle at all.