11-06-2020, 10:05 AM
(11-06-2020, 10:00 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: The smaller states wouldn't have a voice for president. You would be denying almost half the country a voice because the cities has more population. Almost everyone I know who moved to North Dakota that was formerly Democrats turned Republican because they didn't realize what it's like to live out in the country. Being in a federal republic every state has a voice, and the more population a state has the more electoral votes it has. That is a very fair way to elect a president, because city voters mostly have no idea what it's like out in the country. It wouldn't be fair for CA and NY to control the country, because that's what it would basically be.
They would all have one vote. Cities don't vote, people do and their location on a map doesn't change that. Again, your representation of your area is your legislative representative, your presidential vote shouldn't be artificially inflated because of where you live.
It's funny though when Puerto Rico gets statehood eventually and the electoral college math doesn't work out well for the Republican party anymore I bet we will start hearing a lot more about other voting methods.
