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.
1
u/[deleted] May 27 '23
[deleted]