Ailiailia wrote:Regarding the electoral college and rural voters, I have a rather surprising finding.
The EC doesn't favor them significantly. The EC favors small-population states, but those are not consistently rural states.
The states which have the most rural population, is surprising in itself. Places like Utah and Nevada with lots of open space are not particularly rural states (the open space doesn't have many people in it). And the two most rural states (biggest percentage of state population being rural) are two very liberal states: Maine and Vermont.
Urban and rural population by state (XLS spreadsheet) from US Census 2010
First, I'll graph all the states. Mainly so I won't be accused of cherry picking.
Now, the states whose voters are advantaged by the Electoral College. Roughly speaking, the smaller the population of a state, the more advantaged its voters are. This is because every state gets 2 bonus Electors regardless of the number of House districts. But it's not strictly so, because the number of House districts per state only approximates the State's share of national population.
I've used someone else's calculations here to eliminate states whose voters are disadvantaged (Texas, California etc) compared to the average US voter.
That's basically my case for why advantaging the least populous states does not significantly advantage RURAL voters.
For anyone who doesn't trust the method of determining 'advantaged' or 'disadvantaged' states, I've also used a simpler method. Here are the 25 least populous states, plus DC:
I think people have been conflating rural states with smaller or underdeveloped or powerless or irrelevant states or states with small populations, when there isn't always a correlation there. (See: Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.)







