4 ms·
I don't understand this idea that just because somebody lives in a particular state their vote should count less than somebody in a different state. That seems
by peterclary 10y ago
I don't understand this idea that just because somebody lives in a particular state their vote should count less than somebody in a different state. That seems evidently unfair.
- tkwj 10y agoThe fairness is intended at the state level. How your state decides on electors is their law. It doesn't even have to poll each individual, historically state legislatures even did it themselves.
- rbanffy 10y agoIt exists because some states are very sparsely populated while others actively suppress the votes of a large portion of its population, first by slavery, then by other methods. It's fair to increase representation of underpopulated states because their interests would be underrepresented if not (and it's a good thing because it allows large areas to be dedicated to nature). Unfortunately, there is no mechanism in place that actively punishes voter suppression. Voters per inhabitant ratio and election turnout could be used to penalize states with low engagement to ensure voter suppression does not occur.
- baddox 10y agoI still don't get it. Why would sparsely populated states' interests be underrepresented if every individual vote were equal? That only makes sense if you think land area or population density is a primary unit of relevance regarding political influence, which to me seems completely arbitrary.
- dllthomas 10y agoOne sq mile, one vote!
- rbanffy 10y agoPeople who live in underpopulated states have a valid argument in that, if their votes are not weighted to compensate for the low density, their voices may end up not being heard. This weighting creates a minimum limit for representation. It, however, removes the penalty for suppressing votes because the remaining votes continue to have a fixed weight.