alexy wrote:

Markus Voget wrote:

Indeed, the current elector counts in U.S. presidential elections
provide a bias towards the more rural, low-population states.
If by "current", you mean "since the founding of the United States",
then I agree. If you mean to imply that it is some kind of recent
phenomenon, you might want to check your facts.

To my knowledge, the U.S. constitution was never changed on this point.
I can even see the logic in it: If, in the legislative branch, you have
proportional representation of the people in one chamber and equal
representation of the states in the other chamber, why shouldn't the
executive branch, in the name of balance of power, be elected in a
similar way (that is, using a middle ground between the House and Senate
election systems)?

At the same time, political preferences in rural vs. metropolitan areas
tend to be very persistent. They *could* change at any given moment, for
sure, but in reality this does not happen often. At least this is the
experience in my home country (Germany) but it also seems to hold true
for the United States (any counter examples are welcome). My personal
impression is that big cities and the countryside tend to attract
different lifestyles, which tend to go hand in hand with different
political affiliations.

So it still seems to be the case that a Republican generally stands a
better chance of becoming U.S. president than a Democrat. The obvious
case in point would be the 2000 election and not so much the current one.

PS: In spite of these considerations, I see no realistic chance
whatsoever that the U.S. presidential election system gets changed any
time soon. For better or worse...


Greetings,
Markus