Nothing you said provides an argument against equally weighting each citizen’s vote at the federal level.
States have select powers over the federal government that are specifically provided by our Constitution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights. When you vote in local elections, you are in effect in control of certain outcomes within your state, as accorded by our Constitution.
The federal election determines representation for every single person in the United States and, in part, how federal governmental power is exercised on their behalf. There is no conceivable logical reason why citizens in any particular state should have more or less say in such matters than those in any other. The electoral college system is an absolute sham that deprives a significant number of people of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to fair representation at the federal level.
I’d welcome any well-formed argument to the contrary. I’ve yet to ever hear one.
In Canada we do this because it allows more representation in minority populations provinces. Very small provinces or Quebec get slightly overrepresented in seats. Rural areas have less people per riding but greater distances makes it logical to do that. If the person who represents you has to travel 100 miles by plane to meet up with small 500 people villiages compared to walking a few blocks in a big city to reach everyone. It doesn't make sense to make them ridings/counties equal.
On that same note the 500 person community will have different needs compared to other 500 person communities in the same riding. In a big city the issues will be very similiar citywide.
"The electoral college system is an absolute sham that deprives a significant number of people of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to fair representation at the federal level."
Yet the constitution defines the presidential election as being done by the representatives of the state's electoral college: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors."
The NPV interstate pact may not even itself be constitutional as it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional consent.
I don't see how you can draw a logical equivalency here? There is one president representing every single American. There are 100 senators, each of whom represents a particular state and subset of Americans. In fact, all you've managed to do is further substantiate NPV, by rightly pointing out that there already exists a body of federal government having control of the legislative process that reflects an equal representation of states. Whether this is appropriate or not is its own separate question, unrelated to issues surrounding the electoral college.
because it's representing the states themselves in addition to the population that happen to live in them. if you don't like all this you really should ask: why have states at all?
States have select powers over the federal government that are specifically provided by our Constitution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights. When you vote in local elections, you are in effect in control of certain outcomes within your state, as accorded by our Constitution.
The federal election determines representation for every single person in the United States and, in part, how federal governmental power is exercised on their behalf. There is no conceivable logical reason why citizens in any particular state should have more or less say in such matters than those in any other. The electoral college system is an absolute sham that deprives a significant number of people of their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to fair representation at the federal level.
I’d welcome any well-formed argument to the contrary. I’ve yet to ever hear one.