WASHINGTON — When it comes to electing the president, not all votes are created equal. And chances are yours will count less than those of a select few. For example, the vote of Dave Smith in Sheridan, Wyo., counts almost 3½ times as much mathematically as those of his wife’s aunts in northeastern Ohio.
Why? Electoral College math.
A statistical analysis of the state-by-state voting-eligible population by the AP shows that Wyoming has 139,000 eligible voters — those 18 and over, U.S. citizens and non-felons — for every presidential elector chosen in the state. In Ohio, it’s almost 476,000 per elector, and it’s nearly 478,000 in neighboring Pennsylvania.
But there’s mathematical weight and then there’s the reality of political power in a system where the president is decided not by the national popular vote but by a political compromise, the Electoral College.
Smith figures his vote in solid Republican Wyoming really doesn’t count that much because it’s a sure Mitt Romney state. The same could be said for ballots cast in solid Democratic states like New York or Vermont.
In Ohio, one of the biggest battleground states, Smith’s relatives are bombarded with political ads. In Wyoming, Smith said, “the candidates don’t care about my vote because we only see election commercials from out-of-state TV stations.”
The nine battleground states where Romney and Barack Obama are spending a lot of time and money — Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin — have 44.1 million people eligible to vote.
That’s only 20.7 percent of the nation’s 212.6 million eligible voters, so nearly 4 of 5 eligible voters are pretty much being ignored by the two campaigns.
When you combine voter-to-elector comparisons and battleground-state populations, there are clear winners and losers in the upcoming election.
More than half the nation’s eligible voters live in states that are losers in both categories. Their states are not closely contested and have above-average ratios of voters to electors.
This is true for people in 14 states with 51 percent of the nation’s eligible voters — California, New York, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Louisiana and Kentucky. Their votes count the least.
The biggest winners in the system, those whose votes count the most, live in four states — Colorado, New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada. They have low voter-to-elector ratios and are in battleground states. Only 4 percent of the nation’s eligible voters — 1 in 25 — live in those states.
It’s all dictated by the U.S. Constitution, which set up the Electoral College. The number of electors each state gets depends on the size of its congressional delegation. Even the least populated states, like Wyoming, get a minimum of three, meaning more crowded states get less proportionally.
If the nation’s Electoral College votes were apportioned in a strict one-person, one-vote manner, each state would get one elector for every 395,000 eligible voters. Some 156 million voters live in the 20 states that have a larger ratio than that average; that’s 73 percent.
And for most people, it’s even more unrepresentative. About 58 percent of the nation’s eligible voting population lives in states with voter-to-elector ratios three times as large as Wyoming’s. In other words, Dave Smith’s voting power is about equal to three of his wife’s aunts and uncles in Ohio, and most people in the nation are on the aunt-and-uncle side of that unbalanced equation.
“It’s a terrible system; it’s the most undemocratic way of electing a chief executive in the world,” said Paul Finkelman, a law professor at Albany Law School who is teaching this year at Duke University. “There’s no other electoral system in the world where the person with the most votes doesn’t win.”
The statistical analysis uses voter eligibility figures for 2010 calculated by political science professor Michael McDonald at George Mason University. McDonald is a leader in the field of voter turnout.
Former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming defends the Electoral College system for protecting small states in elections, which otherwise might be overrun by big-city campaigning.
“Once you get rid of the Electoral College, the election will be conducted in New York and San Francisco,” he said.
Sure it gives small states more power, but at what price, asks Douglas Amy, a political science professor at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts. “This clearly violates that basic democratic principle of one person, one vote. Indeed, many constitutional scholars point out that this unfair arrangement would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on those grounds if it were not actually in the Constitution.”
History shows that candidates have won the presidency but not the popular vote four times, and in each case it was the Democrat who received the most votes but lost the presidency — 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.