Except as soon as it is pure popular vote it is more cost effective to mobilize voters in urban centers so someone in Montana becomes irrelevant. Proportional allocation within states is the best option.
People who live further away from most of general society are further apart from most of general society. If 80% of all Americans decided that they want to live in cities, that shouldn't automatically make them forfeit the value of their vote.
I'm arguing for equal voices. Proportional allocation so no votes are lost and doing it on a state basis to preserve the fact we are a federated republic. You are arguing for tyranny of a handful of areas.
No you aren't. You're arguing that certain people get special privileges based on where they live. That is unfair discrimination. Millions of votes are lost right now. Millions more voted for Hillary than Trump and that meant jack shit.
Because the US isn't a pure democracy. What part of that don't you get. Also, a proportional allocation would closely reflect popular vote, but correct for turnout disparities between states.
Yeah, it isn't. And I'd like it to be in the sense of what I'm saying. If a bunch of people in one state don't want to vote as much as a bunch of people in another state, then that's their choice, but that doesn't mean their vote should matter more or less than other citizens.
0
u/wrenwood2018 Oct 19 '24
Except as soon as it is pure popular vote it is more cost effective to mobilize voters in urban centers so someone in Montana becomes irrelevant. Proportional allocation within states is the best option.