Is it true? Tl;dr A red vote is worth more than a blue one. This has come about because of the growing division between rural and urban voters. Our founding father built fairness on both people and territory (US has One party on territory and the other on people). Yet the over-representation of rural America was not supposed to affect the House and presidency. For most of the past 200 years, when rural, urban, and suburban were scattered between parties, it did not... This not good for us all: “ the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge... is itself a frightful despotism” {George Washington}
I find it amazing that these red states, that are under performing by every conceivable metric (GDP, education, job growth, socioeconomic mobility, health, etc) are given as much power to dictate the rules of the nation as they do. I can’t fathom why a state like Alabama has equal say with a state like California. Especially when you see what their decisions have done to their own state.
It's amazing that people in California still think they have the world figured out. CA also has the largest wealth inequalities, highest rates of homelessness, and more people fleeing the state than moving to it. You should realize that most people never want to do what CA is doing. That's why so many are moving to Texas
First off, I’m in nyc. Second, California has managed to develop the 5th largest economy in the world. It produces more in tax revenue than it receives. Take a look at how much they give in taxes vs how much they get back. That difference could end homelessness statewide. But instead it’s spent helping backwaters like the Deep South survive inspire of their own ineptitude. Let me make it simpler. If states like CA and NY didn’t have to play sugar daddy to these failures of society then they could easily cure the problems you’ve cited and have money left over.
Yes, the US electoral system was set up to prevent democracy from threatening the rule of the elites of the Republic.
There’s a counter argument to be made against high population centers getting to dictate national policy and leadership, though. Is the electoral congress and representational delegation system in our country ideal? No, but neither is the fate of the country being left up to New York, California and Washington.
That's not much a counter argument. If most of the population lives in high population center and most of the GDP is produced by the high population centers, then why shouldn't the fate of the country not be decided by high population centers? Leaving it up to a minority sounds like a recipe for a revolution.
Because GDP isn’t everything, which is unfortunately a blinding factor in here where everyone cares more about TC than raw impact from their careers. It’s not left up to a minority. It’s balanced against the weight given to the minority. Farmers may not make as much as your average developer, but you’d sure as hell care a lot more if they all quit their jobs.