04-03-2019, 08:05 PM
(04-03-2019, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No it isn't because each state gets two senate votes no matter what their population is. California has almost 80 times as many citizens as Wyoming but they both get 2 senate seats.
Which is why I used the word "essentially" instead of "literally".
(04-03-2019, 05:47 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no inequality on the state races. Each vote counts exactly the same.
This doesn't change the uselessness of the vote in an overwhelmingly partisan state.
Quote:The reason people say a blue vote in red state is a waste is because that vote can not be used to cancel out another red vote in another state.
No, they say it because it is exactly that, useless. Polarized states exist. Voters of the opposition party in those states will not prevail and the issues they are most concerned with will be given less to zero consideration.
Quote:My vote is usually for the loser in the Tennessee gubernatorial race, but at least I know my vote was counted against every other vote in the state. However my vote in the Presidential election is a waste because it can't be used to cancel out some other vote for the other party made in a different state.
Hence your living in the United States. Many, if not most, issues are decided at the state level. You're essentially stating that our state based system of government needs to be replaced so that the whole country can have a say in what each state wants or does.
(04-03-2019, 05:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
I'd rather disagree but do go on.
Quote:How can you be in favor of the "all or nothing" allocation when the Framers made it clear that not every representative from each state had to vote in a block?
They allowed autonomy from those they deemed worthy of having it. An elitist view to be sure. I am not saying the EC has become exactly what the Framers envisioned, but it has fulfilled a role they clearly embraced; preventing the tyranny of the majority.
