People in rural areas think similarly due to a similar environment. What a rural area desires in the nation's leader does not necessarily align with city voters. You must see the danger of minority having the majority of the voting power.
Say Louisiana and the mid-west would decide that a fascist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents in the cities stand up against that in any way but force.
Works just as well, and is what is actually happening.
Ok, accepting it can go both ways. Why would you want one small portion of the country deciding the direction of the country instead of each state having an equal say? Isn't an equal say more fair for all states?
Split California into 6 states and they could still each have more population than many other ones. In your system, they not have 6 times as much total power.
Because they are 1 of 50 states. A state is a single member of a union. The influence of a state should not be determined by geographic size or population.
The compromise of quantity of electoral votes was in response to your argument. I am saying that it was a poor compromise that has resulted in eroding the protections of the electoral college as populations have grown.
What we have is like saying the fat guy in the group counts a 3 people.
Say Louisiana and the mid-west would decide that a fascist leader would be best for the country. How the hell do residents in the cities stand up against that in any way but force.
Works just as well, and is what is actually happening.