[your-nanny]

Wyoming is a state and this country is a union of states, not acres, or arbitrary units of population. We've failed to communicate the actual point of all this, which is to make sure each state--and not population districts--get representation at the federal level. If you have a problem with all this you should be asking: why do we need states?

[corebit]

I don't see this point often enough. People just want to do whatever tweak to the system will get them their short term boost and damn the consequences and long-term thinking.

[notfromhere]

There's a whole body called the Senate that gives small states equal representation. As it stands, the presidency is the only elected federal office where individuals aren't elected by popular choice.

[flamingbuffalo]

Wyoming gets 2 senators, same as California - which means their residents get massively MORE representation at the federal level.

[your-nanny]

Then move to Wyoming.

States are entities of political significance, regardless of how many people happen to live in them. This is a union of states, and states get a say. If you don't believe that consider advocating for the replacement of states with population based administrative districts.

[greenpizza13]

> Then move to Wyoming.

This is such an overwhelmingly stupid statement. It's effectively "if you don't like it, then leave."

Wyoming is not as desirable as California in many ways. People don't want to go there. Just because it's not as desirable doesn't mean it should get arbitrary favoritism when it comes to elections.

[your-nanny]

First off, abide by HN guidelines please.

Second its only your perception that it receives favoritism, because of your mistaken interpretive frame that sees electoral college electors as being about individual citizens instead of as a compromise between two sets of stakeholders: states and the citizens living in them. Until you recognize that states themselves have an interest in Federal elections, you will continue to misunderstand the role the EC plays.

Fairness isn't a simple concept. There can be many mutually incommensurable notions of fairness. Unfortunately, partisans pick and choose those that suit their interests best.

Just as an example from domestic life. Consider a family of 4 individuals with different caloric requirements. One notion of fairness would split a pizza pie into four equal portions, but another would split it in proportion to their caloric needs. Getting everyone to agree on the notion that should be operant is hard because each choice implies winners and losers.

If you don't think states interest in Federal elections shouldn't count for anything, say so, and then give some thought about whether you think states should just be replaced with population based administrative districts that change with the census.

[jki275]

you don’t want to go there, presumably because it’s not politically aligned with your beliefs. Which is exactly how it works.