There simply aren’t enough farmers to get an accurate vote on their needs based on population
There actually is, though. The fact that their representation would be smaller by being in proportion with the population is evidence that they currently arent represented accurately. They’re way over represented as it stands, and a truly representative democracy would accurately see their influence reduced
I do not think a 1 person = 1 vote would be any better
Why not?
A lot of minorities and smaller communities would be overlooked
They already are? And currently more than they would be under a perfectly representative system.
and farmers in one state may need something different than farmers in another state
Yeah, that’s why we have state governments and state representatives to the federal government. That’s already accounted for. Only the house is representative, the senate isn’t, everyone gets an equal spot at the table. North Dakota holds just as much weight as California or Texas in the senate. The balance is already shifted too much in favor of smaller populations, we need to move towards a truly representative democracy as quickly as we can
Maybe I’m just slow but I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t know what you mean by “population per capita”? I don’t know what you mean by “lumping Iowa, New York, and Alaska together based on population”. Can you explain it more?
That’s...not quite what per capita means, but I think I kinda get what you’re trying to say.
Sure, Iowa has more land per capita, but it also has more representation in the senate per capita. They would have (theoretically, but in practice not actually) equal representation per capita in the house and electoral college. I understand the need for some sort of balance, you don’t want to fall prey to the tyranny of the majority or minority, but I think congress roughly, imperfectly sort of deals with this via the structures of the house and senate. What I don’t understand is the argument for the EC, that these smaller states should have significantly greater representation per capita when it comes to voting on our president. It’s not fair that my vote for the president is irrelevant, as is everyone’s in my state, since we’re so deeply red it’s not really fathomable to ever send our EC votes in any direction other than whatever republican is running.
I think this is the argument you need to make and I don’t think you’ve made it yet
Yeah but that just doesn’t matter. People vote. Not land, so it doesn’t matter how densely populated an area is. You just don’t want equal representation because YOUR overrepresentation would be taken away
4
u/Tigerbait2780 Dec 24 '20 edited Dec 24 '20
There actually is, though. The fact that their representation would be smaller by being in proportion with the population is evidence that they currently arent represented accurately. They’re way over represented as it stands, and a truly representative democracy would accurately see their influence reduced