@MuricanConservative One person, One vote seems infinitely more fair than a person in Wyoming essentially having 3.6 compared to an inhabitant of California. The fact that a candidate can win the Presidential election with only 22% of the votes seems outright undemocratic even.
Can the US even be called a democracy with such a system(and yes a republic is a subset of democracy)? I'm guessing that most people would answer no to that question if they applied a neutral position on the issue(i.e if it happened in another country than their own).
Incidentally the problem with gerrymandering would also go away since you wouldn't need districts anymore, other than as a convenience to make counting the votes easier.
33
@MuricanConservative One person, One vote seems infinitely more fair than a person in Wyoming essentially having 3.6 compared to an inhabitant of California. The fact that a candidate can win the Presidential election with only 22% of the votes seems outright undemocratic even.
Can the US even be called a democracy with such a system(and yes a republic is a subset of democracy)? I'm guessing that most people would answer no to that question if they applied a neutral position on the issue(i.e if it happened in another country than their own).
Incidentally the problem with gerrymandering would also go away since you wouldn't need districts anymore, other than as a convenience to make counting the votes easier.