The American political system, and specifically the Electoral College, was deliberately designed to empower land-owners. Under this system, even the sparsest states (and the most agricultural states) get at least one Electoral vote. This means that the influence of an individual vote in a land-rich state will always be greater than the influence of an individual vote in a heavily populated, and thus labor- or capital-rich state. See below which states voters were most empowered by the Electoral College:
Voters per Electoral Vote in 1900
Voters in redder states more influential, voters in bluer states less.
However, even the Electoral College could not rig the system sufficiently in favor to overpower labor- and capital owners in the more populous states. See below the states with the most electoral votes at the turn of the previous century
Electoral Votes per State in 1900
Redder states have more electoral votes, bluer states fewer.
Even though the system was designed to favor land owners, demographic trends and the rise of American capitalism were too much for the Electoral College (and the population-agnostic Senate) to overcome. As a result, polices at this time were more likely to favor capital and labor owners than land owners.
What specific laws, regulations and policy outcomes in the US during the early 1900s are the result of this skew in political influence?
Just like there were losers and winners back then, there are losers and winners now. Check out this link on economic inequality in America!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.campusprogress.org/articles/how_unequal_we_are_the_top_5_facts_you_should_know_about_the_wealthies/
-Belen Marquina
Thanks, Belen. These are slightly different types of inequality we're talking about here, but the topics are not unrelated.
ReplyDelete-Jesse Mathewson