> CA would be the 7th largest economy in the world if it were its own country. NY would be 11th. But yes, let's just pretend like they don't matter when it comes to the US as a whole.

Except we're not pretending like they don't matter. We're pretending they have a proportionate say. Regardless of wether your hypothetical proportion would be sound or not the proportion just isn't based on the size of the economy of a state.

Businesses work that way though.

You're free to petition for a CAexit or NYexit if you desire. Not that that'd happen either...

> Except we're not pretending like they don't matter. We're pretending they have a proportionate say.

Well... they don't have a proportionate say, if by "proportionate" you mean "in proportion to their population". They have less say then that.

But they also don't have a proportionate say if you mean "in proportion to their only being one state out of fifty". They have more say than that.

All of which is by design. Whining about it now is just sour grapes. Now, if people had been complaining about it since they first learned about it in junior high civics class, then I'd be more inclined to grant them that they have a principled position...

I live in Washington State, which was essentially totally ignored by all the candidates. The reason is simple - WA is an overwhelmingly blue state with a winner-take-all delegate selection.

If elections were based on the popular vote, then the candidates would have been here campaigning, which might have dramatically changed the vote in WA. Not enough to turn it red, but a big chunk.

My point is that changing the rules on how Presidents are elected will change how they are campaigned, the platforms of the candidates, etc. One cannot assume a voter tally under one scheme will be the same as the tally under another - not at all.

Not when it comes to an election. It is what it is but the electoral college is the rules to the game. The popular vote does not mean one thing in America when it comes to an election.

If California were to become it's own country tomorrow, Californians would learn how much they also depend on other states.

You don't even have to go further than electricity and water supply to see how much they rely on other states. But I'm sure there's a lot of other areas where they're reliant on other states as well.

Other than the Colorado River, does California depend on other states for water? If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact?

Power, I'll grant you. They've been "exporting pollution" by having power plants built in other states for a while now...

> If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact?

Well I would imagine that deal would have to be revisited in light of a secession, no?

That's basically what my point was. Maybe they wouldn't have to, but I imagine they would.

Yea, and many of us don't live in CA. The country is 50 states, of which the president should represent. If you want laws specialized for CA, pass them in CA. This is why federal should be staying out of local affairs in my book. Because the needs for CA and NY are drastically different than less populated areas.

There is no winning here. You either ignore the voice of CA or the voice of less populated states. You're arguing to ignore a voice, just the same as it is now.