These insights came quickly, but it was many years before Natapoff devised his formal mathematical proof. His starting point was the concept of voting power. In a fair election, he saw, each voter’s power boils down to this: What is the probability that one person’s vote will be able to turn a national election? The higher the probability, the more power each voter commands. To figure out these probabilities, Natapoff devised his own model of a national electorate--a more realistic model, he thought, than the ones the quoted experts were always using. Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts--such as states--than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the electoral college, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system. Good article. The point is that the electoral college doesnt dilute our voting power, it sharpens it. We have more change of influencing the election as part of the state voting majority, which in turn can make or break a Presidential candidate, then as part of the blob of 100 million voters.
The liberals know this. They know the urban, not-too-informed Democrat sheeple will punch the ticket automatically. They want to disenfranchise the smaller states in 'flyover country'...
James Madison, chief architect of our nation’s electoral college, wanted to protect each citizen against the most insidious tyranny that arises in democracies: the massed power of fellow citizens banded together in a dominant bloc. As Madison explained in The Federalist Papers (Number X), a well-constructed Union must, above all else, break and control the violence of faction, especially the superior force of an . . . overbearing majority. In any democracy, a majority’s power threatens minorities. It threatens their rights, their property, and sometimes their lives.
Madison was right to be concerned. That's exactly what the liberals are trying to do.
The arguments which you advance about the statistical probabilities of having your vote be decisive are exactly the kind of thing which might move four liberals on the supreme court. Appeals that I have been making on this thread about what the original meaning of the framers are virtually irrelevant to these four.
The four liberal justices will work backwards from what they think is good for the country which, although they will never admit it, means what's good for liberalism and the Democrat Party. The only way to overcome their backwards syllogism is to try to infuse race into the issue and claim that the decisions respecting voting and civil rights apply here and that to deny the application of those cases here is to deny those cases. These are the kinds of arguments that these liberal judges might find persuasive because you are actually arguing for democracy and turning the tables on the rats.
The other five justices (including Kennedy) need the kind of arguments I have been making and Kennedy needs both kinds.
