Not to mention that Wyoming has zero representation in the California state government. It sounds silly to say that, but people are conceiving of this in the wrong terms. Making it about the federal government is highly disingenuous when the issue at stake is the state government. These people are upset with being ignored, and half the posts in this thread are deflection based on "they share superficial similarities with these other people who are not being ignored!" That is not a response.
Let me put it another way then: the system is not designed to properly represent people if they decide to cluster in a handful of large population centers. The issue exists even at the state level. I don't think my comment about the federal govt was disingenuous, either. The article stated one of the people was literally wanting "the people with power" to give up some of their power so the people up North could have more of a say, as to which my point was that the system already favors them, even if it favors them
even more at the federal level, which isn't their main concern here. If Democrats have to rely on state power because their power at the federal level is in part hurt by their concentrated voter base, why should they also give up their state power?
Edit: I feel I should also note that yes, rural Californians might not care how things work outside of their own area, but that is the kind of discussions you'll have when you talk about changing how their leaders are elected.
So I just like to think of what someone in an urban area who is aware of all this might think. Why should they want to give up more influence in a system that already values their votes less? Where does it end?
