re: .

quote:

---

No I don’t. States can split up their electoral votes but the number of votes that a state has is still based on the population of that state, giving some states with smaller populations an advantage. Thus a rural vote in Wyoming is still weighted more heavily than a rural vote in New York State, even if electors divvy up the votes in both cases.

---

The only ones who care about the "advantage" you are talking about are the ones who already wanted to move to a NPV because there's no real advantage to be had as a citizen living in the state of Wyoming. What does it matter if their vote has more "weight" or "power" or "force" or whatever word you want to use if the end result is 3 electoral votes out of over 500?

The compromise rewards states with higher populations while giving a little bit of a say to those states with very small populations. In the end, Wyoming still has a say for the POTUS, even if it's a small one compared to California or New York. At the same time, California still has a very, very big say in who becomes POTUS because they have a lot of people. They just aren't given such a big say that they can bully the rest of the country. And that's perfectly in-line with the founders' thinking on governance.