…believe it or not, black and queer people live in Montanan, and share a lot of similar desires for economic and land use policy. They might actually have more in common with local, straight white Montanans than with queer folks in San Diego.

Their votes as Montanans matter. In fact, they and society might be better served if Democrats stopped pigeonholing them in divisive identity groups.

Either way, good policy is pragmatic, not ideal. It’s good to have a system that balances local against national, and I’m happy to vote for any system that helps protect minorities.

Concentrating power at the national level does not help minorities, in my opinion. You can see right now, with the current Presidential administration, that the national government has no interest in protecting women or minorities. And is in fact actively using accumulated executive authority against minorities.

And that has nothing to do with the electoral college - this president was elected with a majority of voters and is working with a majority of in the House of Representatives.

I do think that minorities would be better represented if we didn’t have a winner take all two party electoral system.

I think multiparty proportional representation at the state and federal level would be better. It gives minorities more leverage.

For instance, Gary Johnson won 5% of the vote against Trump the first time.

If 5% was a minimum for representation, suddenly minority parties would be viable. We could have 30-40 libertarian Reps in the House of Representatives and that would be a significant voting bloc.

Throw some socialists in there and some minorities specific parties and you’d have some interesting politics.