| > DO other countries not use it because they are not a collection of geographically / culturally / and relatively-recently separate states that have united so there is little reason to adopt a system that fairly treats unique states in relation to a larger unified federal body? There are plenty of countries with proportionally representative/popular-vote (or at the very least, mixed-member PR) models that are culturally and geographically diverse. Germany is the best example that comes to mind. > The people vote in thier states, the states vote for the president. Without it, all 48 other states get railroaded by the 2 with the highest population. We have a representative democracy because that's not fair. The alternative was shown in 2016. Trump lost the popular vote by millions, but won in three smaller states by ultra-thin margins. So instead of California, Texas, Florida, and NY dominating Presidential elections, we have Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Michigan dominating them. Considering that small states are already dangerously overrepresented in the Senate, it seems reasonable to have the one truly national official elected by true popular vote. > We have a representative democracy because that's not fair. This is wrong on two fronts. First, we have a representative democracy because southern states essentially held the Constitutional Convention hostage. Second, the truly "representative" part of government is already sufficiently exhibited in Congress. If you want empty space to have power, you already have that in the Senate (and the House, in which small states are also over-represented). |