A question for here, but it is a non-party question just a election related question.

Currently, the voting system in US is based on an old setup where you send people to represent to the capital to vote for X.

But this was a pre-telegraph system and is practically obsolete. You can do a one-person-is-one-vote setup now easily (like in most of the modern democracies now due to modern tech). It is a fair way of every voter having a voice, and the gerrymandering, or so. 60% of the people in total voted Republican and 40% democrats, but because of the corrupt district drawing, and the whole district system in general. There is a chance that a minorety vote still gets a state.

(works OC 2 ways). A one-vote-per-person system will resolve this.

Would you be in favor of this, or what is the reason not to?

Eddit: It will also save a lot of tax dollars organising an election due to the lower logistics, and forces politicians to focus on the full region and not just on one where they think they need to get more votes. So, no matter the party, you will be better represented. Is this seen differently?

I asked the same question on a democrat focused group, I like to see how this is seen from both perspectives. So can you let me know :) ?

By necessary evil I mean someone who might not be the ideal president or someone you might not vote for in "normal" times, but who is necessary in order to get illegal immigration under control, get radical leftist judges and activists out of government, get back law and order, get criminal and corrupt Democrats investigated and jailed, stop and eradicate the woke mind virus, etc etc.

Bonus Question: Which candidate do you believe has a better shot of the presidency? Vance or Rubio?

There is nothing else to add here.