I interacted with someone from Wyoming once. She made this point: Wyoming has a lot of Native Americans, and it struck her as contradictory when people would say "native Americans are underrepresented" alongside "Wyomingites are overrepresented." Of course there's nuance but it was interesting in any case.
Wyoming has 16k native americans. California has 762k native americans (if you agree with self-id, which I don't). Your friend clearly must be in favor of disenfranchising these native americans if she thinks her Wyoming vote should count for 67 native american votes in California.
In general, I don't find the idpol defense of 67x relative voting power for Wyoming's particularly compelling.
If you could read you'd see (A) I didn't refer to her as a friend and (B) I didn't mention her political affiliation. In fact your assumption is wrong.
It wasn't a very political conversation but yes it could be used that way. I'll say this though. Isn't that what Native Americans need? They are in fact a tiny percent.
no, i don’t think we should move towards some sort of race-based confessional system. minority rights, sure - but the color of your skin should not impact your vote share.
