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 card on location rather than population, which is actual people?
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.
Going down this road means that only NYC, chicago, LA voters count.
So “only” the majority of the people. Got it.
Tyranny of the majority.
I’m talking about disenfranchising everyone exception those living in 3 cities.
There is no perfect solution, just a series of hopefully workable compromises… Madison’s grand compromise.
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 card on location rather than population, which is actual people?
Land doesn’t vote and people live in cities. Shocking I know.
Please explain why.
Population density. If a candidate can carry NYC, chicago, LA there are enough votes that they can ignore the vast majority of the country
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?
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.