(November 14, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: For one thing, the people in those less densely populated states control much of our food supply and other natural resources. Giving them less of a say than they already have is likely to inspire them to take other measures to get us to listen to them. We're already conspiring to take away one of the few civic tools they have to get our attention, in order to avoid having to take them into consideration. Would it really kill us to try to address their economic concerns?
The problem with this argument I see is that given we know that these people control much of our food supply and other natural resources, they already have our attention. A president who ignores their needs is going to face a crisis. I think a President should be focused on the entire nation, and that includes all people who keep everything running.
I don't think taking away their enhanced vote is a way of avoiding taking them into consideration; rather, it's a way to ensure that the views of the entire nation are taken into consideration. That is what should happen when voting for a President of the USA. We aren't voting for a President of farmers, or miners, we're voting for a President of the entire nation.
People seem to be forgetting that these people already have state representatives and district representatives in Congress. It it *their* job to represent their views in government, not the President's.
