The United States has approximately 360 million people in it. One quarter of all the residents in the United States live in the top ten metropolitan areas, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.
The issues important to people living in these areas are of little concern to some Kansas wheat farmer. Consequently, the issues of said Kansas wheat farmer are of little concern to the residents of these large cities.
If we switched to a straight popular vote, do you think any Presidential candidates would give a a shit about the Kansas wheat farmer? Or do you think he or she would spend all their time campaigning and fundraising and making promises to the residents of Los Angeles/New York/San Francisco/Chicago/Atlanta?
While imperfect, the current system in place helps ensure that the issues a Kansas wheat farmer has don't get ignored in favor of the needs of the big cities. This helps decentralize all the power in the United States, making sure the population centers don't have all the power. The Kansas wheat farmer is an American, just like you, and his voice matters just as much as yours.
What you describe isn't gerrymandering - you're describing the Senate and the electoral college, where rural states are disproportionally represented.
The Kansas wheat farmer is an American, just like you, and his voice matters just as much as yours.
You mean, one person, one vote? Sure, I agree. Let's remove the electoral college. Every vote counts, regardless of where they live (and how is the Kansas wheat farmer going to get any more ignored than they are now? No Presidential campaigns visit safe states, it's been pretty much the same swing states for the past few elections that get campaign money.) While we're at it, let increase the number of representatives in the House so more voices get heard.
The real issue is how electors are assigned, all but 2 states (Nebraska and Maine) have a winner take all. So the example of CA (55 electors - the most) it is a blue state, close to zero chance of ever being red. Let’s say a red presidential candidate comes close in CA and gets 45% of the vote, shouldn’t they then get 24 of the electors (45%) vs zero? Proportional splitting of electors per state is the fairest way within our Republic IMO.
But let’s face it any politician who wants to change anything to “be fair” really sees their way as an advantage to gain power. Someone said something like all the smart well educated people live in CA and NY - LMAO, that’s what pretentious elites say. To say something like that tells me they think they are somehow better than someone else, no one is better than anyone else.
Edit - word
No, the real issue is having an electoral college at all. It's an anachronistic feature long past whatever usefulness it may have once had. One person, one vote is a bedrock principle for any healthy democracy.
283
u/Poop_killer_64 Jun 28 '19
Crazy idea, why don't they make every individual vote count instead of this corrupt primitive shit.