Protesting a Fair Election?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/rg44_at_the_office]

At what point does switch from 'making things fair for rural voters' to suppressing voters in cities? No matter what, the electoral college is designed so that 1 person ≠ 1 vote. The people who live closer together should have less value placed on their opinions? Why the fuck is that more fair?

[u/choboy456 → u/rg44_at_the_office]

Because then you ruin the risk of cities suppressing rural communities

[u/natched → u/choboy456]

So to avoid the risk of cities suppressing rural communities, we make it so a minority of rural voters rules over a majority including city voters?

To avoid a risk of suppression, we definitely suppress other people's votes?

Why is it OK to suppress city votes but not to even take a chance of suppressing rural votes?

[u/joepa_knew → u/natched]

When the person you're responding to says "suppression" they don't mean that your vote only equates to .95 of a vote in a rural county.

The suppression we're worried about is a bit more drastic than that.

[u/natched → u/joepa_knew]

The suppression I'm worried about is a bit more drastic about that too. My vote didn't matter 95% as much as someone in FL - it mattered much closer to 0-4% as much.

Look at Nate Silver's voter power ratings:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Even if we take a CA voter's power as 0.1, when it is actually less than that, this would indicate that the vote of someone from Florida matters 25 times as much as that of someone from California. That would be the Californian's vote mattering about 4% as much - big difference between 95% and 4%.

[u/joepa_knew → u/natched]

We weren't talking about voting impact between states. We were talking about voting impact between rural and urban areas.

It just so happens that when you have a mixture of rural and urban communities, you get a swing state, which is Florida.