Timeline for Can the U.S. technically be called an oligarchy and a democracy?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 26, 2020 at 9:31 | history | edited | Paul Johnson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added link to The Economist study on this.
|
| Aug 25, 2020 at 16:38 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @Acccumulation: So the California voter has more influence than the Wyoming voter... square root of the population ratio (1/60) is about 1/8, and the number of electoral votes is 18 times higher, resulting in an effective swing power of 18/8 = 2.25 This is much closer to "fair" than if the electoral votes were proportional to population, because then the swing power would be 60/sqrt(60) ~ nearly 8 | |
| Aug 24, 2020 at 22:50 | comment | added | Acccumulation | @BenVoigt Wyoming has one eighteenth the electoral votes as California, but has only one sixtieth the population. And even if the electoral votes were proportional to population, the probability of being a swing vote is proportional to the square root of population. | |
| Oct 26, 2018 at 7:00 | comment | added | Paul Johnson | @DrunkCynic No, I've construed it as making the US less democratic. | |
| Oct 26, 2018 at 1:42 | comment | added | Drunk Cynic | I've downvoted this answer because you've misconstrued the Senate, a key feature of the republic foundations built in the Constitution, as an indicator of being an oligarchy. | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 23:36 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | "a Wyoming voter has 67 times as much influence in the US senate as a Californian voter" but this balances out the winner-take-all rules in the Electoral College -- a swing California or Texas voter influences how many dozen electoral votes? | |
| Oct 25, 2018 at 12:27 | history | answered | Paul Johnson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |