Lot of people are pushing back by noting Wyoming gets the most electors per capita.
But that doesn't determine how much power a state has in the Electoral College. What matters is the ability of a state to provide the tipping point electors, and Wyoming has zero power over that.
But that doesn't determine how much power a state has in the Electoral College. What matters is the ability of a state to provide the tipping point electors, and Wyoming has zero power over that.
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1435079885014409217
If electors per capita were all that mattered, explain why no presidential candidate ever goes to Wyoming, no ads ever get aired in Wyoming, no party conventions are ever held in Wyoming.
@gelliottmorris is right, Wyoming is worthless in the EC, and even Republicans know it.
@gelliottmorris is right, Wyoming is worthless in the EC, and even Republicans know it.
There is actually *no link at all* between how many electors per capita a state gets and how powerful it is electorally.
Sure, some small states like NV have outsized power. But so do MI, PA and FL, which are in the top ten *largest* states. Closeness, not size, is what matters.
Sure, some small states like NV have outsized power. But so do MI, PA and FL, which are in the top ten *largest* states. Closeness, not size, is what matters.
Perhaps 20 years from now, when more than half of all campaign time and advertising by both parties is spent in Texas, we can finally do away with the myth of the Electoral College existing for the benefit of smaller states.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
