So we come back to the same old issue - what is more important - 'area' equality or people equality (*) (*) it is not even area really, it is state equality, regardless of area, vs people equality - Alaska is the largest state by area, but the least dense population wise while Rhode Island is the smallest but 2nd most dense.
Maybe we should just have the acreage vote then. Each landowner gets to vote in proportion to their landholdings? barfo
I'm all up for abolishing the electoral college. It won't happen by the 2020 election, it will take at least 10 years.
100 at least, imho, unless there is a continued misrepresentation of the majority - which will lead to conflict. If the EC matches the popular vote (as happened in the Obama elections) - the discord will subside, but if it continues to consistently go against the majority - I suspect a conflict will happen - that's how the world works.
As long as they provide resources - they will always have an impact - but the reality is that the world at large (and the US as well) goes urban. It only makes sense to ensure that the voting represents the people as the world changes.
Get rid of fucking long ass year and a half long road campaigns period....and vet the candidates without exception before they can run....our elections should be more like other elections in the world and last 6 weeks...we end up with burned out candidates and deeper divisions...every candidate should be given a hard campaign finance cap across the board and it should be spent on their infomercials and video taped speeches...have your debates but include every candidate...not just the dems and republicans...vote...done...it's become a milk machine of bullshit and waste...any argument that a candidate spouts for that long is going to burn them out before they get in the game...stupid waste of money and more people will vote in my view because THEY are not burned out from the endless spin of a long repetitious campaign of insults and lies..if you eliminate the road trip and stump speeches you trim the fat...they try to make it some sort of super bowl for viewers but it ends up being Judge Judy....if campaigns are only broadcasted on the internet..TV..radio or covered by newspapers the popular vote would not be affected by whether or not candidates held rallies in Omaha or NYC
Their votes won't matter. Political action committees won't focus on them at all. Presidents go campaign in these rural areas, promise them things, help them out. If their votes don't matter, they don't do these things at all. They go to the big cities, promise them things and help THEM out only.
They will have to, if the resources are not there - it will be felt by the population at large - lack of food or resources will always be an issue - so I disagree this will happen. At the end of the day, people vote based on how things matter to them - if all of a sudden it costs $100 for a gallon of milk - the urban population will vote to invest in rural infrastructure for sure.
What difference does it make whether advertising is targeted at them or not? Their vote still counts the same as anyone else's. Besides, I don't buy that argument. Advertising is much cheaper in less populated states. barfo
The city of Long Beach California will be more important than an entire state, as far as Presidential campaigning is concerned. Meaning its better for a candidate to go to Long Beach and spend time with voters, promise them benefits.
No, they won't. They'll let the farmers die and import what is cheapest. Do you think a Californian really gives a fuck about what some farmer in Iowa is up to? No. Oh? The President is promising federal funding to fix potholes in LA? Nice. Fuck the Farmers then, we have more people so we get the attention.
Doesn't matter. The vast majority of voters never see a candidate in person anyway. What does it matter whether people in Long Beach or New Hampshire get to see the candidate in person? barfo
If the majority of voters are in major metro areas, the candidates will spend all their time there. So they will see the candidates. Rallies will be held in New York City, LA, Orange County, San Diego, the Bay Area, Chicago, Houston. No more in these buttfuck states. Yes, that includes Oregon. 80% of the time in the top 20% of metro populated areas.
Since farming is based on freshness - I honestly doubt this is true for most agri-products - but at the end of the day, if an industry is outdated and can not support itself - it does not make sense to support it and subsidize it long term. First, California is a very big state - so it is not that dense, but - given that California is the biggest agricultural producer in the US - it is a lot more likely that an Iowa urban resident will go for a cheaper produce from somewhere other than California produce than the other way around. But, if urban populations can not get their produce and resources - sure, they will care about providing resources to these areas to keep their supplies flowing.
