Federalism does that. Ensures greater proportion of people live under rules they prefer than any possible adjustment of Senate.
-
-
-
That assumes that the goal is voter preference maximization, which it often isn't.
-
Of course, but if that's not goal, complaints about disproportionate influence of small states are beside the point.
-
Not quite. If the arguments is that the majority is a signal about what the right policy is, then giving small numbers disproportionate influence decreases the signal to noise ratio.
-
In other words, of you like the preferences of CA & NY voters, you want them to control everything
-
Nonsense. Califormia voters are not homogenous. It’s a large state, but it’s no less diverse than the equivalent population assembled from contiguous states elsewhere.
-
Further, even with NY and California 2016 voters voting for a single candidate together you are stil not even half way to the median voter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.