Parts of Britain, by the 1800’s, were known as “rotten boroughs.” A rotten borough was an election district that had lost significant population due to industrialization and movement to cities. The remaining shrunken population still elected a representative to the British parliament.

Meanwhile, in contrast, growing cities had little representation in parliament.

Gradual reforms eventually led to a fairer system, giving more representation to the cities.

Our voting system today doesn’t approach the unfairness of the rotten borough, but it bears resemblances.

Each state, whether California (2010 census: 37,252, 895) or Wyoming (2010 census: 563,757) elects two senators.

California elects 53 representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives. Wyoming elects one representative.

A combination of those numbers forms the “electoral college.” This electoral college, according to the U.S. Constitution, elects the president. It has 538 members (equal to 100 senators plus 435 representatives, plus 3 members for the District of Columbia).

Each electoral vote from California represents 719,219 Californians. An electoral vote from Wyoming represents 192,579 citizens of Wyoming. Thus, the citizens of some states enjoy more representation in the election of the president.

Several movements are attempting to change the election of the president to more equally reflect the population of the United States. However, whether one loathes it or loves it, the election of the president by the electoral college is, at present, perfectly legal.

However, one reason for less representation of urban voters in the House of Representatives has to do with the “gerrymandering” of voting districts by state legislators. Gerrymandering means the party in power too often draws voting lines to favor its members rather than honestly reflecting the population of the state.

Surely, true representative government rests on accurate representation of actual voters.