panicdeleter: wilwheaton:And yet, California gets the same representation in the Senate as any of th
panicdeleter: wilwheaton:And yet, California gets the same representation in the Senate as any of those other states with a smaller population that Los Angeles County. Sure. Makes sense. That’s the point of the senate though, remember that rural is technically a kind of minority, it was set up to have the house, population oriented, and the senate, where all state governments have equal say, so that rural people don’t get their needs spoken over, back when that was the only minority the ruling class might have cared about. Otherwise we’d all be doing whatever the big states wanted and while I’m not a big fan of what most rural people have been for lately I really don’t want california and texas and new york making decisions for the whole country. I agree with the second comment.Imagine you live in a neighborhood where there’s 10 houses, and 2 of those houses had 9 people living in them while the rest had 2.Imagine any time you had to vote for something, those 2 houses had more control each time.People say we need equal representation so it’s kinda weird to also think California should have more say because there’s more people. It’s an oxymoron.Now I have problems with the fact that if one candidate gets just over half of the electoral votes, they suddenly get the whole state and the whole way it’s designed doesn’t make much sense anymore. It definitely needs to be changed to fit today, but I’ll never be for the popular vote for this reason. -- source link