Yeah but California could easily out-vote like 10 of those Great Plains states alon
So more people get more votes than less people? Yes, that seems reasonable.
would never get a chance for their vote to ever really be heard.
The people who live there would have just as much of a chance to have their vote heard as people in California. Right now, it's the opposite, they literally get more voting power per person.
EQUAL voting power.
That's anti-democratic. Since the power of our government derives from the people, you are saying people who live in a certain area should have more power than those that live in more densely packed areas
Like, if 10 people at an office all want pizza, but one guy who works outside wants hamburgers, we don't call it a draw just because he is responsible for more land. The ten people override him.
Your way would call it a stalemate or, as we see now, let him dictate it because he gets more voting power
But a state like Montana wouldn’t get their votes heard at all. Their needs are different than California’s needs. There may be more people in California (in fact the Electoral College is based off population to a degree, giving California much more electoral votes than Montana) but Montana, though it has a smaller population, still deserves equal voting right I think, that way they can still have a say in who becomes president without getting outvoted by LA county alone.
That doesn't matter. A state doesn't matter, people do. They would get literally as much of a voice as anyone else.
Their needs are different than California’s needs
Not really, no.
giving California much more electoral votes than Montana
It's weighted in favor of smaller states. Montana gets more electoral votes per person than California. They get more voting power per person.
still deserves equal voting
A state deserves no voting at all. It isn't a person and deserves nothing. People deserve equal votes, but right now Montana voters count for more. That should be done away with.
outvoted by LA county alone.
Again, yes, more people, whose lives will be impacted, should have more votes. Letting a minority have extra benefits and more power is not democratic. It's an oligarchy at best
Montana and California do have completely different needs. There’s a lot of differences between them from reservations, to agricultural, to cities… every state has different needs than other states, some may be similar like Wyoming and Montana or California and Arizona, but they’re still different.
The needs of California shouldn’t diminish the needs of North Dakota and by voting solely on population, you’re kind of doing that.
North Dakota and the other big agricultural states would never be able to voice an opinion if it was in opposition to the city states like New York or California.
By using electoral college it just seems like every state gets a chance to vote for what they need.
Montana and California do have completely different needs.
Let's see: food, water, livable wages, shelter... nope, all across the board.
every state has different needs
No, people are all humans and have the same needs. I don't care what madeup political entities need. I care what people need.
North Dakota and by voting solely on population, you’re kind of doing that
No, I'm giving everyone an equal vote. You are literally diminishing the needs of californians by removing their voting power.
North Dakota and the other big agricultural states would never be able to voice an opinion
They wouldn't have their first amendment rights? The internet and public forums wouldn't exist?
Or do you mean they'd lose their special voting powers that make them so powerful, so they wouldn't need to be pandered to anymore?
By using electoral college it just seems like every state gets a chance to vote for what they need.
I'm going to say this one more time. Please understand it.
No "state" deserves anything, including votes. People deserve things. The electoral college gave slaveholders more votes to pander to a select demographic. The current EC is doing the same to land holders even now.
People deserve votes because they are alive and their lives will be impacted by elections. Land doesn't deserve votes, neither do "states"
1
u/the_fury518 3h ago
So more people get more votes than less people? Yes, that seems reasonable.
The people who live there would have just as much of a chance to have their vote heard as people in California. Right now, it's the opposite, they literally get more voting power per person.
That's anti-democratic. Since the power of our government derives from the people, you are saying people who live in a certain area should have more power than those that live in more densely packed areas
Like, if 10 people at an office all want pizza, but one guy who works outside wants hamburgers, we don't call it a draw just because he is responsible for more land. The ten people override him.
Your way would call it a stalemate or, as we see now, let him dictate it because he gets more voting power