Let's Talk About Ceps
I've heard this before from Americans who were supporting their electoral college system, whereby someone in Wyoming has far more influence in choosing the next president than someone in California, and I don't understand it at all. If the latter has 70 times the population of the former, shouldn't the collective will of its voters count for 70 times as much?I get that a one-person/one-vote system is unfair to rural areas, every election winner would be who London or NY/California voters wanted.
Saying "one person, one vote is unfair" is implying that some people's votes should count for more than others just because they live in a sparsely populated area. Why should they have that privilege?
(This is leaving aside the insanity of the winner-takes-all nature - in all but two states, I think - of the EC vote allocation.)