If rural voters almost always outnumbered urban voters, and we had one vote per person, everyone would be fine with that.
People keep telling you that, and you keep up with your nonsense about having to "have a voice" over "blue haired" city folks. One vote per person gives everyone a voice.
You cant even name these supposed "rural interests" that would be "ignored" if everyone had the same vote.
One vote per person gives everyone an equal voice. Bizarre that youd call that "anti-democratic". Also bizarre that you frame this as an all or nothing, us against them, issue. Its not.
There are rural people in big states, urban people in small states and folks move from one setting to another all the time. One vote per person gives everyone voice and say.
The 10 million plus rural Californian's literally have no voice, as the rules of the EC mean that the popular vote winner of California gets all of Californias EC seats.
If we had a national popular vote, each of those 10 million + voters would have their vote contribute towards their preferred candidates total.
You claim that one person, one vote would mean rural voters have "no voice". This is on its face dumb and a bit insane, especially the way you repeat it. Clearly, they would have exactly the same voice as you or me under a popular vote. Instead, in the current system, they get a louder voice than you and I.
This does nothing to give more voice to rural concerns (clearly California rural voters dont get a say) but it entrenches a very small number of "swing states" as the only places that matter to national campaigns. Its a bad system and your attempted defense of it is plain nonsense.
3
u/workswimplay May 27 '23
No, not no voice nation wide but exactly the same voice as everyone else.
Ahh mask off moment. You have a prejudice against city folk. Gosh darn their hair dye!