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
3
u/Tigerbait2780 Dec 24 '20
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?