I am failing to understand the point you are trying to make.

You just described most parliamentary systems. There is still one PM that concentrates the executive power.

Also, most parliamentary elections (that I know of) have some form of barrier clause. This is explicitly done to avoid pulverization of power. In Germany, your vote needs to be along with a minimum of 5% of the population to actually count. There is no "one vote, one share of power" as well.

So what gives? You asked me if I was "fine with it". I am saying that I am fine with it because I don't know of any alternative that has implemented anything better. If you know of any place with a functional government, as big as the USA and with a "one vote, one share of power", by all means do share.

In a democracy, rules to elect an executive power (where you need one decisive direction within a framework) are obviously not the same as those to elect the controlling powers of this executive power -- among which parliaments, where you need a fair representation of all the citizens. That is ok.

I'm fine with a low barrier clause for keeping unorganized/low stakes ones out; that does not prevent proportionality in the final representation distribution though.

My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue. See an earlier comment from someone: "it's a different kind of equality".

> I'm fine with a low barrier clause for keeping unorganized/low stakes ones out; that does not prevent proportionality in the final representation distribution though.

I wouldn't say that 5% is a "low barrier clause", actually quite the opposite. That means, e.g, in a room of 20 people, every lone/dissenting voice gets completely shut out of the conversation.

> My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue.

For you, it's an issue. For me it is a feature. The USA is too big, too diverse and too uneven of a country to try to apply universal policies and expect good results everywhere. It makes sense to balance this by bringing more power to the states and not push it away to the federal level.

It's an issue to me, probably my French background. :)

The USA didn't look so... indeed, uneven or fractured, before Trump's appearance in politics. I guess I should have travelled across there several years ago. I sincerely hope you can collectively get out well of this mess.

Also, hopefully not the point here, but the "this country is too big/different to try..." reminds me of several conversations I've had with people from certain countries, justifying their authoritarian regime.

Also, in a room of 20, if one person cannot bring and share into their voice at least a second person among the 19 other ones, they won't get any result either by being part of the assembly. That's were you build friends and teams before elections to propose your platform. Alone, you can't act much.

If you think Trump has anything to do with USA's current social fabric, you either are too young or not really paying attention. Terms like "Deep South", "coastal elites", "flyover country", "Rust Belt" and many others were not invented in 2016 or 2008.

> authoritarian regime

There is nothing authoritarian about the system. It is just different in the sense that it was designed to put more weight to the states instead of the union in the balance of power.

In my view, much more authoritarian/totalitarian was Napoleon's obsession with centralization and uniformity, to which I guess you take no issue? ;)

> Alone, you can't act much

You are moving the goal posts. We were talking about representation according to one's votes, not about the efficiency of its parliament.