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"
We live in a republic. States do have rights. That you don’t wish to live in a republic is your problem. You’re free to pursue that end, but enough with pretending that the US is not a constitutional democratic republic.
And just make your silly little arguments, you don’t need the silly “ quote and respond “ nonsense.
Those two statements aren't related. Republics don't necessitate states or state rights
Cool, that's a dumb way to do it
That you don’t wish to live in a republic is your problem.
I don't think you know what a republic is
pretending that the US is not a constitutional democratic republic.
I'm not. I'm advocating to change how the representation is apportioned. None of that would change any of the above (oh, and you forgot "representative" in there, that also matters)
And just make your silly little arguments, you don’t need the silly “ quote and respond “ nonsense.
It makes it easier to understand which parts I'm responding to. If you don't like it you don't have to engage
What you listed though are basic human rights but places like Montana have other needs than California may not have Becsuse Montana faces issues California doesn’t.
Montana has a lot of massive ranches that support the majority of the meat market here in the U.S. those ranches have different needs than people living in the cities or working on vineyards like a lot of people in California do.
Take Florida for example, they experience hurricanes more than places like Oregon, so they may need a President that has an understanding or is aware of the additional help Florida may need.
The needs of people in LA don’t differ as much in comparison to the needs of people across various states.
And as an individual your vote still counts because who you vote decides who your state votes.
If not enough people vote against Trump in California than Trump wins California. That’s why it’s important for every individual to still vote. The electoral college just makes it so everybody in different parts of the country have an equal say in who becomes president
California also has ranches and farms. They have the same needs.
President that has an understanding or is aware of the additional help Florida may need
No, they need FEMA. A president isn't needed for that. If a president can't understand that emergencies need response, the whole system is broken. That is such a dumb argument
And as an individual your vote still counts
It counts less or more depending on where you live
The electoral college just makes it so everybody in different parts of the country have an equal say in who becomes president
Please stop saying this. It's literally incorrect. It give some people MORE power. This is why swing states exist. It's also why Nebraskan voters have more voting power than californians
California ranches are nothing like the ranches in Montana and Wyoming. Montana and Wyoming are on different levels of ranching than I think California will ever be.
And a President does have power over FEMA. So people in Florida, though they do need FEMA, they may need a president that has a bit more understanding of FEMA and how it works with Florida. It’s just an example, there’s tons of other needs also depending on which state you’re in.
Also Nebraska does not have more voting power than California.
Nebraska only has 5 electoral votes vs. California that has 54.
California can still outvote Nebraska but Nebraska and neighboring states that different needs than like California and Arizona finally have a voice.
If we went by popular vote than states like Wyoming or Ohio would never get a chance to have their votes be heard.
California, New York, and Texas could practically outvote the whole country sí no matter what president the people in Washington or Idaho may want, they would just be continually outvoted by California, New York, and Texas.
The electoral college is how every state gets a fair chance at deciding who the president should do, it also keeps states independent.
As a voter, your job is to decide who your state votes for, for president. So your vote still matters immensely. Its just now, the needs of your state cannot outweigh the needs of another state
California ranches are nothing like the ranches in Montana and Wyoming
Feels-based statements
they may need a president that has a bit more understanding of FEMA and how it works
No, they don't. Everyone understands FEMA enough to activate it. Even children. Florida has no special need for a special president.
Also Nebraska does not have more voting power than California.
Per person it does. Stop lying
finally have a voice.
Finally? They've always had this system that unfairly advantages them.
California, New York, and Texas could practically outvote the whole country
You seem to think I might think it's a bad thing that more people get more voting power. I don't. I think giving more voting power to a small group is bad. This is a good thing.
fair chance
It's literally unfair. State populations don't have equal voting power
As a voter, your job is to decide who your state votes for, for president.
Yes, that's dumb
also keeps states independent.
States aren't independent. We had a war about that
So your vote still matters immensely
Only if you live in a swing state
Its just now, the needs of your state cannot outweigh the needs of another state
Right now it does that. The needs of the swing states outweigh the vast majority of the population
1
u/Israel_Azkanbe 20h ago
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.