In the House each state has the number the number of representatives is corresponding with the population of that state.
So, Wyoming voters' votes are not any more powerful than votes of those in California or New York.
If number of senators were allocated the same way, there would be no need for the Senate.
And America would not be a Republic.
I think they were referring to the Electoral College. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times the vote of a person in Cali or Ny
Sent from my iPhone using
USMessageBoard.com
So, are you saying that Wyoming abuses the fact that they are a state with small population, i.e. minority?
The Electoral College assures that even 'minority' states have a voice.
Kind of like affirmative action.
Very much unlike AA. In practical terms the money and time spent in small states impacts elections, there is much talk that Trump's election was an accident since he lost the popular vote - nationwide - by millions, and won three states by less than 2% of the entire vote.
The same case can be made for Congressional Districts; when gerrymandering created one party dominance as money was poured into these enclaves to make a safe harbor for a parties incumbent and limit the ability of the other party to win.
We need to reform our elections so we can never again be dominated by one party, one ideology and lead by an inept, incompetent and mendacious President.
I don't think it'll ever happen. But yes all states should allocate their EV as Maine and Neb do. It would preserve the "weight" given to smaller states while also allowing every voter to have his/her will more accurately counted.
But the logical fault of the OP is its abstract nature. Basque no doubt would argue Obamacare's mandate is "socialist social engineering depriving individual choice." Yet in the "real world," there is no "real" consequence for not having private insurance if one is not already on Medicaid or medicare. Because the cost of treatment was passed on to those with insurance, even if the non-insured ended up in bankruptcy where he/she could discharge medical debt. We can't have true freedom of choice without true unfettered consequences for actions.
What elections come down to is money. The issues in this age of technology could create an informed voter, but the volume of conflicting ideas, alternative facts, lies, half-truths, rumors, innuendos and character assassinations confuses even the most sophisticated and curious person.
And sadly, this is used by the power elites (pols, global corporations, Wall Street , brokers and the very well off) to influence the voters with talking points and 30-second radio and TV ads.
It's odd too that the current iteration of conservatives whine about people not being personally responsible, and then attack Obamacare for making people pay for their own subsidized health care. Such hypocrisy irks me.