65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      They are already advantaged in both the house and the senate. Why do they need advantages in literally all elections to feel they are treated fairly?

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Not quite, the number of house reps is not strictly proportional to the population of each state. California has 704,566 people per house seat, while e.g. Wyoming has 568,300 per house seat. This means a Californian house vote is worth roughly 80% of a Wyoming house vote.

    • licherally@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Right, because Kansas’s vote should hold the same weight as New York or California even though there’s less people that live in Kansas?

      • arensb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        No, but a Kansan’s vote should have the same weight as a New Yorker’s or Californian’s, or even a Pennsylvanian or Michigander. Not all Kansans vote the same way, and it would be nice to have a system that recognizes this.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        So its bad if peoples votes in densly populated places don’t matter, but it doesn’t matter if people voting in sparely populated areas don’t matter?

          • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            The money and politicians will focus on the large urban areas, because that will maximize time and money invested.

            People in rural areas will not have the capacity to affect things at all.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          They get to vote, don’t they? They just don’t get to have their vote given extra privileges just because they live in a sparsely populated area, that’s all.