3
Every state has a minimum of three electoral votes, because each state is allowed to appoint a number of electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives representing the state in the U.S. Congress, and every state has two Senators and at least one Representative. Also, although the District of Columbia does not have Congressional representation (since it is not a state), the U.S. Constitution has been amended to allow them to appoint a number of electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives they would have in Congress if they were a state or the same number of electors as the state with the lowest population, whichever is less. There is currently one state with a smaller population than that of D.C.: Wyoming.
Each state is allowed to have a maximum of two senators, minimum of one depending on the size of the population.
No, there are not as many electors in each state as there are senators. The number of electors in each state is equal to the total number of representatives and senators that the state has in Congress. Each state has two senators, but the number of representatives varies based on the state's population.
yes According to the 23rd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, the District of Columbia is allowed to appoint the number of electors to which it would be entitled if it were a state, but never more than the number of electors from the least populous state. Each of the seven least populous states has the minimum possible number of electors, three. And currently, the population of D.C. exceeds the population of Wyoming.
If the minimum elector is 3 at the least (Washington DC and some small states), that 3 represents the elector for the winning party only. Does the losing party have their electors also but is not capable of electing the president since their candidate lose in the popular vote of that state? Should it be safe to say 6 electors each at the minimum?
If the minimum elector is 3 at the least (Washington DC and some small states), that 3 represents the elector for the winning party only. Does the losing party have their electors also but is not capable of electing the president since their candidate lose in the popular vote of that state? Should it be safe to say 6 electors each at the minimum?
Votes in the Electoral College are proportional to the states' populations.
The state of Washington is allowed to appoint 12 electors for the presidential and vice presidential elections of each of the years 2012, 2016 and 2020, one for each of their two senators and ten Representatives. That is one more than they had from 1991 through 2011. The District of Colombia is allowed to appoint 3 electors in each of the three elections before the 2021 reallocation. They are allowed the same number of electors as the least populous state, which is currently Wyoming. If there were no states with a population lower than that of D.C., D.C. would be allowed the same number of electors it would have if it were a state (which would be 3 also).
Each state is allowed a maximum of two senators, and a minimum of one, based on population.
The number of electors for each state is determined by the number of members of Congress (representatives plus the two senators) each state has. The District of Columbia has the same number of electors as the least populous state.
Three. Every state has exactly 2 senators in the U.S. Senate, while the number of representatives in the U.S. House vary from state to state. A state by law, though must have at least one congressman. Since number of electors is based on total number of senators and congressmen of a state, 2 senators + 1 congressman= 3 total electors minimum.
The amount of electors really depends on the number of people in the state each state gets one member for each member of Congress had bythat state