On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:24:14 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 16:16:06 -0000, wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:36:30 -0000, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Dec 2016 15:33:21 -0000, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 9:56:54 AM UTC-5, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

The whole country is to get one government. The whole country only ends up with one choice. If you have 50 million folk in one state and 10 million in another, why would you say the 50 million are 5 times less important?

Here's an analogy. You've got a guy who's the proverbial
90-pound weakling and another guy who's a 250-pound bruiser.
Should the big guy always get his way?

The Electoral College is a bit like handicapping a horse race.

Cindy Hamilton

How are two people of different weights anything to do with numbers of people? Why would you equate a city of 2 million folk as the same importance as a city of 1 million folk? The only sensible way to do votes is for every individual person to count for the same as everyone else.

I am guessing that because you live in a place with a more even
population density you do not understand but here is a map

http://gfretwell.com/ftp/geographic-landslide1.png

That means nothing to me. Just state what you believe. For example:

Area A contains 30 million people.
Area B contains 60 million people.
Area C contains 100 million people.

Let's say everybody in A and B vote for Mr Smith, and everybody in C votes for Mr Jones.

Would you say 2 areas to 1, Mr Smith wins? Or would you say 100 million votes to 90 million, Mr Jones wins?

It gets back to the rights of states. You had a similar issue with
Brexit. The majority of the people who voted, did not want to be ruled
by a union of other countries.
Would you really want the French and Germans voting on where they get
to spend your money? They have more population than you, much more.