> everything is essentially decided by the most populous states anyway?
The state isn't voting homogenously. Just like Eastern Washington could vote differently to the Puget Sound with more direct representation.
The key word in your argument is 'populous'. Thinking in terms other than people, be it states/counties/acreage is another version of putting "landowners" in charge.
> Why people leaving in LAC should be in virtually full control (with the current power of federal government it's very close to that)
Which explains why politicians spend so much time in Election season in LAC. Except they don't. They are instead in Ohio, Montana, NH, Wyoming, Iowa, Florida.
> Thinking in terms other than people, be it states/counties/acreage is another version of putting "landowners" in charge.
Again, having 3 votes against 57 does not put whoever has 3 votes "in charge" in any sensible meaning of the word.
> Except they don't.
Because they think LAC has already made up their minds, no matter what. And judging from voting patterns, they are correct. So whose fault is that? If more LAC voters would vote diversely, politicians would pay more attention to LAC, they are not stupid. But when it's 70+% to one side, why bother? Same campaigning dollar would bring much more impact elsewhere, and campaign resources are finite.
> Again, having 3 votes against 57 does not put whoever has 3 votes "in charge" in any sensible meaning of the word.
LAC and NYC both voted very blue, yet here we are. How do you credibly claim that "LAC is by and large in charge of the direction of the federal government"?
I don't claim they are. I claim they would be, if Wyoming had 1 vote and California 70. Right Wyoming specifically has a little more influence than it would have in purely population-based system. That was by design - otherwise large urban conglomerates would totally dominate all the politics and more rural states would have no chance to influence politics at all. Now they have a larger chance, while still being very far from any dominancy, but at least they have guaranteed minimum influence of 3 votes.
The state isn't voting homogenously. Just like Eastern Washington could vote differently to the Puget Sound with more direct representation.
The key word in your argument is 'populous'. Thinking in terms other than people, be it states/counties/acreage is another version of putting "landowners" in charge.
> Why people leaving in LAC should be in virtually full control (with the current power of federal government it's very close to that)
Which explains why politicians spend so much time in Election season in LAC. Except they don't. They are instead in Ohio, Montana, NH, Wyoming, Iowa, Florida.