you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -11 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Going down this road means that only NYC, chicago, LA voters count.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

    I live in Tulsa, OK. I've voted blue and my vote hasn't mattered in all the years I've been able to. This would make it actually count for something.

    It's not that only big cities count. It means that your vote counts not matter where you live. Land doesn't vote, so why are we assigning votes based on location rather than population, which is actual people?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

    Population density. If a candidate can carry NYC, chicago, LA there are enough votes that they can ignore the vast majority of the country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 20 hours ago (1 child)

    Yes, that's where populations tend to be.

    Are you arguing the individuals who live there should have their votes count for less because of it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    I'm arguing that a monoculture of urban elites should not dominate the government. In theory, the judicial arm of the government would protect the interests of minorities but the judicial branch is composed of coastal elites as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (2 children)

    So "only" the majority of the people. Got it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments