When you can potentially ignore over 80% of population distributions geographically, you're not a representative republic. Or at least you're a lousy example of one.
Why does the geographical population distribution matter more than the
actual voting population?
I'm the same person whether I live in Montana or New York, why should my vote for the same office count differently if I move?
It has nothing to do with "people going nuts over liberal overlords". Those are your words, so save the rolly eyes for yourself.
Excuse me for paraphrasing but it was brought up by a few other people...
With a permanent Democrat presidency there would never be another Republican bill passed into law.
The economy would be *expletive deleted*ed, the justice system would be really *expletive deleted*ed(beyond the *expletive deleted*ed it is now), taxes would be sky *expletive deleted*ing high, crime would be insanely high, etc.
And we would never have a republican, let alone conservative in the white house again. Imagine the damage that could do to the make up of the Supreme court.
People seem to be totally incapable of separating out how something that
might hurt their political party might also be a fairer system.
A good system can produce a bad outcome. Our current system, which everyone else here seems to prefer, has produced some bad outcomes (Obama?).
It doesn't mean it's a bad system, but there might be better systems and there might be fairer systems.
I've been talking about fairness, everyone else keeps obsessing over the political ramifications.
It's a crappy idea regardless of political party
If that's true, why do people keep bringing up political parties in their arguments against it?