There is a lot of complaining going on about people from populous areas voting differently than people in more rural areas. This is starting to drive me nuts. The people in Eastern Washington, the more rural part of the state, complain that the votes in the greater Seattle-Tacoma area aren’t like the votes from their area. This morning I saw something about how many votes there are in Los Angeles County, and how bad that would be if not for the Electoral College.
This kind of thinking is starting to drive me crazy. Yes, there are more votes in populous areas like Los Angeles and Seattle-Tacoma because there are more people here. Can someone explain to me why my vote shouldn’t count as much just because I live in Seattle? Is there some kind of magic in living in a rural area that makes some else’s vote count more than mine?
There are great things about living in a rural area, just as there are great things about living in a large city. There are also lots of great things about living somewhere between those two – like in a smaller city surrounded by farms. There are also bad things about living in any of these environments.
However, a vote is a vote is a vote. Joe Blow’s vote from Eastern Washington should count as much as, but not more than, Jane Doe’s vote from Seattle. John Q. Public’s vote from Los Angeles should count as much as, but not more than, Hannah Who’s vote from Wyoming. Aren’t we supposed to be a nation of “one person-one vote?”
It’s time for people to get a grip on reality. I am not saying that living in a big city is the only way to live, only that it is where I currently choose to live. There is nothing wrong with that. Neither is there anything wrong with living in a rural area. But a vote from a rural area should not count more than a vote from an urban area, or vice versa. Maybe it is time to do away with the Electoral College.
Leave a Reply