Nem said:
I have heard what you have said on the subject before and i disagree. Thats not what history says, especially if you look up under WW2. Regardless of tactics, you cannot at your own discretion decide that one person should be more valuable than another. That is not democratic or egalitarian. Its is therefore socially and moraly reprehensable. |
No one just decides at their own discretion, but we have, as a government, decided that in certain places, it is more important to give smaller states an unproportional amount of authority, even if that means making some people have "less representation." Perhaps the most obvious example is the assignment of two senators to each state, regardless of size or population. The US system of government is not meant to be entirely egalitarian; it's designed to balance the desires of individuals with the desires of the states. The way the president is elected is a reflection of this; a compromise between sheer popular vote and each state having an equal say.
I'd be curious, if you are for a popular vote determining things entirely, would you also be for abolishing the Senate, as it too makes the wishes of people in smaller states "more valuable" than those that live in larger?









