3 ms·
Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equ
by tastyfreeze 6y ago
Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equal say? Isn't an equal say more fair for all states?
- majormajor 6y agoBecause state sizes are massively lopsided. Split California into 6 states and they could still each have more population than many other ones. In your system, they not have 6 times as much total power. How does THAT make sense?
- tastyfreeze 6y agoBecause they are 1 of 50 states. A state is a single member of a union. The influence of a state should not be determined by geographic size or population. The compromise of quantity of electoral votes was in response to your argument. I am saying that it was a poor compromise that has resulted in eroding the protections of the electoral college as populations have grown. What we have is like saying the fat guy in the group counts a 3 people.
- theplague42 6y agoNo, it's like saying 100 people living in one house get the same say as 1 person living in another house. You literally used people in your example!