Why might small states have wanted the electoral college system?

Answer 1

The electoral system favors smaller states by providing them with the same number of electoral votes as larger states. These states have a smaller population yet get the same recognition and consideration when the electoral votes are counted.

Answer 2

It doesn't "favor" small states, but it gives extra weight to small states. This is because electors are apportioned based on the total number of seats in Congress (2 Senate seats for each state + number of House seats). Since very small-population states like Alaska and Wyoming get 3 electors, each elector actually represents fewer people than do the electors of large states such as California or Florida.

The reason for this is to force the politics of presidential campaigns to focus on more than just one region--most presidents can be elected only with the geographic support of at least two regions of the country, since lower-population regions have a significant number of electoral votes.

Answer 3

The Electoral College arguably favors small states as every state, no matter how small, gets at least three ECVs (Electoral College Votes), and so small states have more electoral voters per vote. This means smaller states are over-represented compared to larger ones.

For instance, Wyoming has the lowest votes per elector, and receives one ECV for every 165,000 people, whereas Massachusetts voters' votes barely count as one third of Wyoming's. Therefore, it is clear that voters in smaller states are over-represented, i.e. their votes have more weight than voters in more populous states.

Moreover, by 2004, California had 55 ECVs representing its 34 million inhabitants. Wyoming had three ECVS representing its half a million inhabitants. Therefore, California receives one ECV for every 617,000 people whereas Wyoming receives one ECV for every 165,000 people. This was extremely prominent in the 2000 presidential election, as a high proportion of small states solidly supported George W. Bush, which is why he was able to win the Electoral College despite polling 540,000 voters fewer than Al Gore.

Swing States and Winner-Take-All

The advantage to small states has been shrinking away, however, as population increases throw more House seats and electoral votes to a few large states. With the winner-take-all arrangement in these states, a candidate would need to win just the 11 largest US states (again, by a small margin), and he would have 270 electoral votes. The votes in the other 39 states would be essentially meaningless.

Answer 4

yes, since every state gets three electoral votes regardless of its population, the number of electoral votes per person is higher for small states than in the largest ones.