Anonymous #1 3w

it is literally the worst. states do not need representation in selecting a president, the people themselves do. one person, one vote.

4

Anonymous #1 3w

Respectfully, fuck the smaller states. they got two senators at most. Both of the Dakotas only really need the one senator in my opinion

4

Anonymous #1 3w

regardless of “state representation”, ranked choice voting would be far more democratic.

9

Anonymous #1 3w

The government is supposed to represent the people, not land

9

Anonymous #4 3w

Small states should get representation, proportional to how many people they have. Because no one matters more based on living somewhere rural.

10

Anonymous #3 3w

Oh fuck me like im a disobedient maid and you’re a bratty pent up princess you’re right

6

Anonymous eviler_ascendgirl 3w

literally. also like, why the fuck do states play a role in federal elections anyway? so much of our modern electoral system is built with concessions to secessionists.

5

Anonymous #2 3w

Actually it’s 1 person 3.8 votes Californians don’t count as people 😂😂😂💎 (that’s a joke btw)

0

Anonymous #2 3w

(by that initial statement, I’m referring to the electoral college and the senate; not the ability for states to manage and administer their own elections; felt the need to clarify just in case)

6

Anonymous #1 3w

Wrong person you’re replying to in this thread

1

Anonymous #1 3w

why the fuck is that a good thing a smaller state should by all logic get less representation than a larger one

6

Comment Deleted

0

“urban slop” I don’t even want to know what you’re referring to, because I already know you’re spewing some utter nonsense.

5

Anonymous #2 3w

It’s a compromise between population size and equal representation To be honest I think we need to reduce the house size so that smaller states get closer to equal representation.

-2

Anonymous #1 3w

what…. REDUCE??? if anything, the house needs to be massively expanded to accurately achieve the representation originally hoped for. you seem more like one of those individuals who think that small states should be making all executive decisions in the nation (to put it nicely, without assuming other nefarious intentions for those who know what I mean) like, no the most uneducated citizens amongst us should not have the most political power.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

It should be equal representation for states not for people that’s why we’re the United States not the United peoples

-1

Anonymous #1 3w

I’d say that the senate and electoral college should be abolished, and that house should be immensely expanded to achieve the original “no more than 1 representative per 30k constituents” today, it’s more like 1 representative per 700k constituents

1

Anonymous #1 3w

fuck the states, the people are all that matter. you and your little ‘pseudo-nationalism for your state’ can go fuck yourself with all due respect; that type of tribalism and those restrictions in our electoral system is part of the issue in modern American governance. it’s equal representation for people; and it’s utterly insane that you’d advocate otherwise. or are you one of those individuals who think certain people shouldn’t be able to vote?

2

Anonymous #2 3w

(maybe the more accurate term would be be “statism”? I’m not sure in all honesty since, yk, a state is not a nation nor country)

1

“Mob of urban slop” you mean the majority of the country?

1

Anonymous #1 3w

What do you think the senate does lmfao?

1