It makes perfect sense. And yes, it's absolutely elitist thinking.
At least you recognize it. But it gets to a contradictory point because for you to say that the absolutely proportional system is better because the LA urbanite is going to be able to take into consideration in their vote what is in the interest of the Oklahoma highlands does not match with you saying that half of the electorate (75/80 million people) are retarded for voting for Trump.
And yes, not just in America. Whenever a country decides to make some peoples votes count more than others, it's because the people that currently have power are concerned about losing it. Full stop. That's the primary reason.
Take an eraser if you have written the point in pencil or white out if you have written it in pen and explain how the goat herders of the Scottish Highlands have more power than the Londoners of the Westminster district and that is why their votes weigh more.
I think the Romans were first to do it, and they literally just did it based off wealth and social status.
The electoral college in America was established in the the late 1700s. It wasn't until 1920 that women had the right to vote. 1965 for black people. I'm trying to just give the facts, but do you not think that's really fucked up? Or do you just hear a liberal talking about racism and assume it's just a made up world, or they must just be pretending care about it to make people think they are a good person? I don't understand how anyone with a basic understanding of history can join this growing "calling out racism is the real problem" movement.
No, you have a totally distorted vision because the weighed electoral systems of most of the world were established where there was no slavery and where more weight is given to the areas that have less power. The Romans and what happened in the USA are rather exceptions, not the norm.
Ok, you said "no system is perfect", then we can agree there are different levels of imperfection?
Yes, we can (lol).
You argue that people in the country would be ignored if the system was proportional (hope I am accurate enough).
No, what I am saying is that within the imperfection of all electoral systems the weighed one does not seem to me so bad and that the purely proportional one harms some minorities, which curiously in this case do not seem to worry you.
Although if we were to make the ideal system, the difference in weight between the most important vote and the least important one should not be more than double, and I believe that in the USA it is up to triple or more in some cases.
Trump will win and he will lead America to glory, not to communism, as Harris wants to do
I don't know if you have noticed that here there is a certain level in the discussions, since you say that you could explain why, otherwise you come off as an illiterate who gets carried away by slogans.