Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Well, I think you're taking it to the extreme Wolfgir.
I really think the US-style compromise is a good model. If it's one nation one vote you can get a situation where the vote of 10 million people counts equally to that of 300 million. Same is true with GDP comparisons. That seems inequitable. But, simply having more people in your nation doesn't seem a fair sole factor, either.
The US solved the problem by having two houses: Senate (2 votes per state) and House (votes based on population). Seems a better solution that just choosing one system or the other. I'm sure their are other such compromises possible. I think this was an issue in setting up the EU structure, but don't recall how. What's Canada's legislative structure?
|
Timber why does America suddanly have a problem with democracy, first you had the embarrasment of bush being *cough* voted in by some stange accounting methods
then they have a problem with a couple of nations daring to disagree with them on Iraq. as though thier opinions and vote should not be allowed. Frustrating it may well be but that is democracy!
And I notice your hint that maybe someway of taking gdp or population into account when counting the votes might be worth looking at.
Does america now have a system where a vote from the poor inner city or country areas is less of a vote than those of the richer suburbs.
Or on population size, India and china together would be a formidable voting block. and where is the incentive for population control(coming from an enviromently aware lawyer? [img]graemlins/stunned.gif[/img] )
Don't change the rules of the game because you are not winning