Perhaps, but it was with this understanding of representation that states applied for membership in the Union. Would small states like Alaska or Hawaii subject themselves to the whims of the Continental 48 with the knowledge that at some point they would simply be nullified by LA or Houston? That same question could be applied 237 years ago to New Hampshire versus Virginia or Rhode Island to New York.
“Fairness” in your way of thinking had to be jettisoned to protect the rights of the minority and the state structure. The world is not fair. I would gladly trade this “fairness” for a stable Republic.
No, the world is not fair. And neither is the reality that the election gets decided by 6-7 states. Nor the reality that residents in some states enjoy more “representation” (based on the impact of their vote) than residents of other states.
The irony is that, even though tyranny of the majority is ostensibly what the EC is supposed to buttress against….the election winner is determined within the EC itself….by the majority.
This is an excellent piece.
Agree with the distinction btw “democracy” and “representative government”.
However, the way the electoral college and senate are construed means that some people are “over”-represented, and others are “under”-represented.
And the “over” and “under”, very roughly and generally speaking, tracks along “rural” and “urban” as well as how populous each specific state is.
Perhaps, but it was with this understanding of representation that states applied for membership in the Union. Would small states like Alaska or Hawaii subject themselves to the whims of the Continental 48 with the knowledge that at some point they would simply be nullified by LA or Houston? That same question could be applied 237 years ago to New Hampshire versus Virginia or Rhode Island to New York.
There’s no debate that it is what it is. But let’s not pretend it has anything to do with fairness.
“Fairness” in your way of thinking had to be jettisoned to protect the rights of the minority and the state structure. The world is not fair. I would gladly trade this “fairness” for a stable Republic.
No, the world is not fair. And neither is the reality that the election gets decided by 6-7 states. Nor the reality that residents in some states enjoy more “representation” (based on the impact of their vote) than residents of other states.
The irony is that, even though tyranny of the majority is ostensibly what the EC is supposed to buttress against….the election winner is determined within the EC itself….by the majority.
It's called the Tyranny of the mob , in Constitutional terms .