Yes, it depends on what you feel is the fundamental component of American society: the person, or the parcel of land.

No, it doesn't. We have checks on the power of the majority in a Republic because the majority doesn't always think long term and it's easy to get a populist leader that splits the country apart.

Yeah, those checks are things like the judicial branch, separation of powers, periodic (and particularly in the case of the Senate, infrequent) voting, and the Constitution being difficult to amend. Giving special power to one type of minority is unnecessary and subverts the general will of the people.

If we had a legislative house for white people and another for black people, would that be a good idea because hey, that white majority doesn't always think long term? Again, there's no reasonable justification for why it should be that geographic minorities get extra political power.

> If we had a legislative house for white people and another for black people, would that be a good idea because hey, that white majority doesn't always think long term?

I mean, maybe. What year are we talking about here?

Perhaps in 2018 that wouldn't be a good idea, but even if you were to go back to so far as the 50s, I think that you would find a lot of blacks saying "yes. I very much WOULD like to have a seperate government ruling me in America, because this other group doesn't care about my rights".

There are lots of times when the majority is wrong, and decentralizing power is one method of insulating people from the effects of it.

>If we had a legislative house for white people and another for black people, would that be a good idea because hey, that white majority doesn't always think long term?

No, because that doesn't make any sense. Nobody always thinks long term. That's one of many reasons why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.

Geographic minorities in the US get extra political power because they require increased infrastructure spending relative to their population, they have a history of rebellion in systems with a centralized government and so that lower population states are more likely to not only accept the decisions of government but actively take part.

> No, because that doesn't make any sense. Nobody always thinks long term.

Then why do we have one house where geographic minorities get extra power permanently?

> Geographic minorities in the US get extra political power because they require increased infrastructure spending relative to their population

No, they get extra political power because it was needed to bring them into the union when the country was founded, and the Constitution is very difficult to amend. At this point there's no reasonable justification it should continue this way, except that the very parties that benefit also have veto power over the system changing. It's like the Security Council.

> they have a history of rebellion in systems with a centralized government

Funny, there are lots of countries that don't give extra political power to rural areas that seem to manage just fine. Does anyone seriously think Wyoming is going to try and secede? Why would they if, by your own admission, they're being subsidized by the more populous states?

> more likely to not only accept the decisions of government but actively take part.

Syracuse, NY has an even smaller population than those states, and yet somehow its residents manage bring themselves to take part in politics.

Doesn't Wyoming currently have disproportionate political power relative to their population? If they didn't, would they still be subsidized?