My logic is not flawed. This isn't something I just made up. It's a widely understood challenge with electoral college reform. Their vote might technically "count" as much as anyone else's, but it wouldn't matter, because who wins the Presidency is decided by others elsewhere, and it's those peoples' issues that will be catered to. It's the same as the current situation, except instead of catering to the issues that matter only in the battleground states, the candidates would be catering to the issues that matter only in large urban areas. Which, in turn, means the rural areas are completely shut out in terms of policy priorities, which further incentivizes people to move to big cities, which only increases the rate of population concentration in urban areas.
You're pushing back on this because of your pre-existing biases and your knee-jerk reaction, but you'd really be better off doing some actual reading on this issue before forming an opinion about what to do about it, because you're acting like this is the first time you've ever heard someone talk about this problem.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
|