The federal government is the government of the individual states. A state is a sovereign entity. Each vote in the United Nations general assembly is identical regardless of the size of the country voting. Ireland’s vote is just as valuable as India’s. That’s the point of the United States — it’s a republic, not a democracy.

As far as 1 WY vote being worth 4 Texas votes, that’s also irrelevant because the president is elected as president of the republic, not the president of individual people.

That made sense before nearly everything was declared interstate commerce. The federal government now directly affects people on an individual level in a way it did not when the system was originally formed.

If that's the issue then surely it's easier to reverse the judicial precedent than to amend the constitution.

My understanding is the vast majority of Americans are in favour of harmonization at a federal level. In the original days of the USA I think citizens identified more with their state than the country as a whole. Outside of Texas that is no longer the case.

I never went as far as saying the the USA is not a democracy but you did. Goes far behind my point, but that was the direction.

Saying that the president is not a president of the people when people literally vote directly for that person (unlike most of the wester republics) is frankly pretty weak. How can you argue he is not the most influencial political figure in a US citizen life?

The people do not elect the president, that is what all the brouhaha around the Electoral College is about. By convention, each state has agreed that the people vote for who their state is going to vote for - but that is not constitutionally required.

This turns out to be really helpful when someone starts claiming something like widespread voter fraud for instance, because there is no one institution to attack, or even identical set of rules that can be exploited. Each state runs it's elections as it sees fit, and then votes the way it deems necessary - and is strongly interested in making sure it's voice is heard.

The citizens don't vote directly for the president, the electoral college does. Usually the distinction doesn't matter but it does affect outcomes. States have different rules in how their electors vote for the president.

Some states have tied their electoral votes to the national popular vote in the name of increases democracy. It will be interesting to see the first state that has its electoral votes changed due to this. I imagine those residents won't be so thrilled to have their votes go against their will and in favor of how other people in the country voted.

Yes, I am aware of how it works and indeed it would be interesting to see a change in the election laws.

For all practical purposes though, people vote directly for the president (last election is the proof that even a full front effort won't sway the election outcome from the people's votes). The only practical difference is that one single vote has a different weight depending on what state you live in.

Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome.

Just imagine how different the left and right parties would be if the will of the people would be equally represented.

> Rural areas are incredibly over-represented imo. This should be addressed more than the tiny details that don't really change the outcome.

So the most populous cities should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of rural people? This sounds like the recipe for a Hunger Games classist uprising.

This is the same as saying your vote counts less than someone with more friends than you.

Might as well just throw out the whole state sovereignty idea which is an option.

Our whole system was based on individual rights and that philosophy extends to states as equal members of the union.

Hmm.. I struggle to understand your logic. Embedded in the concept of Democracy is the fact that there is a rule by which a decision is made and once taken it impacts everyone lives.

Just try to look from the other side of the fence. I can rephrase your question as:

"So the few individuals living in rural areas should have the unopposed power to decide all of the federal policies that could impact the lives of the vast majority of the people in the USA?"

So yes. I am sorry but with a democracy, you sometime lose and have to accept that the decision is different from your preference.

In the US this only applies to federal, how much federal laws should impact states is not really in discussion here (and honestly I have no opinion on the matter. I am originally from Europe and have limited understanding of a lot of states laws and structures).

Also, you are confirming my point that rural areas are over-represented. You seem to intend that it is rightly so, but I do find this criteria unjust, just like your example of voting power coupled with amount of friends is.

To me, the only criteria that I find just is "every person has one vote with the exact same power". It's simple and naïve, but only one I have seen that I consider fair.

Ideas that make sense to people in cities don't always make sense in rural areas. Let's say for an overly simplistic example everyone in a city thinks it's a great idea to tax anyone who lives in a home that has more than 2000 sq ft of living space. In the country _everyone_ meets this criteria so thereforethey are unfairly taxed.

This sounds very weak. It's like saying "Ideas that makes sense to the lower class don't always make sense to the top 1% net-worth people. For example taxing the rich more. For the top 1% net-worth individuals, _everyone_ meets the criteria and therefore they are unfairly taxed".

How you cluster people is irrelevant for a policy to be fair or not. It's petty to chose what gives you an advantage. You should stick to a set of values and agree on policies that better express those values.

So what you're saying is that the opinions of rural people regarding uniquely rural problems don't matter in the context of the nation as a whole.

That is not at all what I am saying (or anyone else afaik).

Understanding and protecting minorities is one of the core values that need to shapes policies.

You can't solve the minority problem by giving them more votes, because you can't give it to all minorities. Everyone is part of somekind of minority.

Today rural people are a minory who has a privilege compared to others.

Wait... I think I misread when I first answered: "Some states have tied their electoral votes to the national popular vote in the name of increases democracy."

Is this a thing? I had no idea. Do you know what states do that ?

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...

> The federal government is the government of the individual states.

In that case, why aren't state legislatures or state governors voting for president and members of congress?

They did, originally. But then we passed the 17th amendment due to rampant bribery on the part of state leaders selling senate seats.

Technically, the state legislatures are entirely in control of which electors are sent for the Presidency. It's just that all of them use the popular vote to determine that. They could pass a law that the governor decides who goes, or that the state legislature chooses exactly who. But they don't at this time.

And prior to the 17th, Senator were chosen by the state governments as well.

> But they don't at this time

Presumably because people of those states don't want it that way. Which means they consider the federal government "their" government, not the "government of the state".

> A state is a sovereign entity.

Uh, not fully…