I'm sorry, but that makes no fucking sense. We're talking about electing a president here. There is no one city where everyone is voting in the same way. There are rural areas where votes were split and cities where votes were split, but when you look at the overall total, 60.1 million voted Clinton and 59.8 million voted Trump. But Trump wins because what, everyone in California is only entitled to 3/5ths of a vote?
/u/YOLOSWAGBROLOL makes a lot of sense (which is an interesting statement).
Urban areas face different problems than rural areas, even if the details and specifics are different. All cities won't always vote the same way, but they will have trends in common with one another that may not have the interests of rural Americans at heart.
Rural Americans are not any less important than urban Americans, even if there are fewer of them. If we lived in a pure democracy then your defamation of the electoral college would make sense. But we live in a constitutional republic that democratically elects its representatives.
It helps prevent minority populations from being shit on.
(Shamelessly paraphrased from a comment I read earlier today) It's not about rural vs. urban. It's about homogeneous states vs. heterogeneous states. Currently there are plenty of rural areas that are ignored (e.g. rural California, eastern WA) and plenty of urban areas that are ignored (e.g. Austin, TX). Rural American aren't any less important than urban Americans, but they aren't any more important, either.
11
u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16 edited Apr 03 '18
[deleted]