• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    As I understand it, because every state still has to have at least 1 House member (and thus 1 electoral college vote). Without increasing the size of the House then all that can do is reduce the proportional power of each vote within California. The State itself becomes more powerful, sure, but the votes of citizens within California are worth less and less as the population grows. It’s a really bad system.

    • nbafantest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Each district is roughly 700k people. A few districts are bigger, a few are smaller.

      California could completely dominate the US House of Representatives and the electoral college.

      A state becomes more powerful by having more people.

      California has much much more power than Wyoming, even tho each voter in Wyoming might have a tiny bit more power than each voter in Cali.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but it’s not just Wyoming. It’s all the little flyover states all teaming up against big bad California, and using their disproportionate electoral power to do so - it’s the reason we’ve had multiple presidents that lost the electoral college, after all.

        • nbafantest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah sure they can get 20 extra electoral college votes combined, but California would have 20-30 more itself. California just handed these over to republicans by refusing to build housing for 60 years.

          New York has done the same.

          We’ve just handed tons of political power over Republicans, who already have a natural advantage.