I did assume your basis was the belief that it’s immoral/unfair for one persons vote to be worth less than another’s simply based on which state they live in.
> You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are.
Why would I say that? I don’t think a single person paying more in taxes would make a difference.
> at a structural level in order to be effective
Yes. And if done at the California state level it would enfranchise millions of people.
I’ll leave it up to you to judge whether that’s good or bad.
> 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California
The distribution would change to give the minority accurate representation based on their vote count.
So a Californian minority voter would not be unfairly disadvantaged just because they live in California.
I mean it’s the same as when we enfranchised women - men’s votes were obviously diluted.
> and aren't looking to change your mind
I’m simply trying to understand your argument. If you can put forward a convincing case and prove it’s not just a political power play then I will happily change my mind.
Though I must warn you that I’m on the other end of the states vs federal debate:
I’m happy for the individual states to decide where they want their electoral votes to go - even if they don’t want to hold a vote and instead use a panel of experts to decide or even if they just want to flip a coin.
Unfair on what basis?
I did assume your basis was the belief that it’s immoral/unfair for one persons vote to be worth less than another’s simply based on which state they live in.
> You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are.
Why would I say that? I don’t think a single person paying more in taxes would make a difference.
> at a structural level in order to be effective
Yes. And if done at the California state level it would enfranchise millions of people.
I’ll leave it up to you to judge whether that’s good or bad.
> 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California
The distribution would change to give the minority accurate representation based on their vote count.
So a Californian minority voter would not be unfairly disadvantaged just because they live in California.
I mean it’s the same as when we enfranchised women - men’s votes were obviously diluted.
> and aren't looking to change your mind
I’m simply trying to understand your argument. If you can put forward a convincing case and prove it’s not just a political power play then I will happily change my mind.
Though I must warn you that I’m on the other end of the states vs federal debate:
I’m happy for the individual states to decide where they want their electoral votes to go - even if they don’t want to hold a vote and instead use a panel of experts to decide or even if they just want to flip a coin.