Actually, it is reasonable. A place like North Dakota can be very harsh but produces quite a bit of resources for the USA (we drove through there and the giant farms were everywhere). Giving them a small say in who is president seems to be fair compared to the winters they must endure to live there.
There is a reason everyone crowds to the coasts...it is a very desirable area with decent climate. So should we reward those who already have the best place to live with the sole power to choose who is president?
If you are so upset about it, you could move from the city to a place like North Dakota and vote there.
Fascinating! Can you tell me some other criteria we should use to decide how much more on person's vote should count over another? So far we have:
- Relative harshness of climate (how do we measure this? Average temperatures? Minimum? Rainfall?)
- Economic output. Per person per sq-mi? GDP/person/sq-mi? In this regard I think cities would still crush rural areas though. And isn't extractive industries just taking advantage of what belongs to everyone? Google create value "out of thin air"...
- Geographic area is more important than number of citizens
Let's think of some more:
- Tax payments? I pay more, shouldn't I have a larger say??
- More miles driven should have more say in transportation policy?
- Hawaii is so nice those people get zero votes.
- Old people will die soon so they get no votes, and:
- Babies have a long life ahead, they get double.