(November 19, 2016 at 9:31 am)Aegon Wrote:(November 19, 2016 at 2:47 am)Opoponax Wrote: If this was the only incidence of inequity in how each voted is given a certain value, I wouldn't complain. The idea is not to give too much power to any given section of the country, and it is crucial we uphold that.
But here's the thing, each state gets two Senators, which means that in the Senate, Wyoming, with a population of under 600,000, has as much power as California, a state with almost 39,000,000 and by itself is the sixth largest economy on the planet. They have one Senator for roughly 300,000 people. California has one Senator per almost 19,000,000.
Also, while Wyoming has just one representative in the House (1 per 580,000), and California has 53, which gives it one representative for about every 735,000 people.
Again though, it is important that the majority not develop into a tyranny, so I don't really have a problem with that.
However, in the one national election we have to select the one office that everyone has the right to vote for, it should be a purely popular vote. Each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to about 178,000 people per. Each of California's electoral vote corresponds to about 709,000 people per. That is fucking ridiculous. In terms of electoral power, it gives Wyoming a relative 3.9 to 1 advantage. Or maybe more accurately, it robs California of around 160 electoral votes (214 minus 55).
When my vote counts for 1/4 of what someone else's does in any other state, that's a load of horse shit. The only equitable solution is that the Presidency should be decided on a straight up popular vote.
And this doesn't guarantee a Democrat win every time, because instead of being able to essentially ignore the most powerful state in the Union, candidates would actually have to campaign their asses off here too, and therefore Republicans could raise their vote total in California and in New York instead of just ceding those states to the Democrats. And Democrats would have to get to work in Texas and the midwest.
The idea that they would have to campaign for every voter in the nation sounds pretty damn fair to me.
In this year’s election, Hillary Clinton won about 62% of California’s popular vote, which was a little less than 7 million. The total number of people that voted (Republican, Democrat, or other) in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mississippi this past election adds up to 7 million. Do you think it’s fair that 60% of California has the same say as 100% of NINE other states? The Electoral College obviously has issues but popular vote gives a ridiculous amount of power to some states and virtually none in others.
Everyone's arguing that states don't matter when 1 person = 1 person. But there are certain interests that vary by region. You're basically telling the midwest they don't matter because they live in an ill-populated state.
Like I said, there are built-in and necessary inequities of the Senate and House that prevent the populous states from ruling over the smaller ones, and therefore their interests are more than fairly represented in the federal government. Again, Wyoming has one Senator per roughly 300,000 people; California, one Senator per 19,000,000.
I don't know where you're from, but here in California, the most the POTUS candidates do is run TV ads here and there and hold fundraisers for people who can afford tens of thousands of dollars for a plate of chicken and vegetables. Other than that, they don't campaign here because the electoral college makes us not one of the swing states. If it were a popular vote, then Republican candidates would have the opportunity to get out here and garner more votes, which in turn would help the predominantly red states.
It isn't like Trump lost the popular vote by 15 million. Had it been worth his time to campaign hard on the west coast, it's not unreasonable to think that he could have campaigned his way to several million more votes than he actually received. I fail to see how that is inherently unfair.
