The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell, and people are talking about that smell now and whether they like it.
And yet, it exists and nobody is in a rush to disband it. Despite the fact that it's propped by US money but San Marino (population 33,344) has the same number of votes in UN GA as US.
> The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell
The only way all people can have exactly the same power if they all have no power at all. Otherwise there would always be somebody richer, smarter, more charismatic, more eloquent, born in better family with better education, etc. etc. which will give them more power. Absolute equality is possible only as equality in being destitute and powerless.
Other aspect of it - I appreciate that somebody living in LA wants to have power over somebody living in rural Appalachia, because there's a lot of people in LA so obviously they should be ruling the whole country. But that's not how US as a country works, and I don't see why people in rural Appalachia would agree to such arrangement. So you have to either conquer them by force (and risk that they would conquer you by force instead) or come to a mutually agreeable arrangement, even if it deprives the LA people of their birthright powers of ruling Appalachia. That's the way it works.
Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? Would make perfect sense, right? But all in all, they are so different organizations serving very different purposes that comparing them isn't even that useful.
This is why Belgium had a veto over the Canada/EU trade agreement. In particular, it was Wallonia's PM who held the veto because Belgium devolved that power.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-...
I think you miss the idea of how analogies work. If I say "the Moon is affected by Earth gravity just like an apple that falls down is" then if you way "but if I put an apple underwater then it'd flow up instead!" that doesn't mean my analogy didn't work. That means you are talking about different things that are outside of what analogy is about.
The fact that EU didn't choose equal representation for member countries and as the result minor countries are powerless is exactly why minor states in the US do not want such arrangement. Just as with an example above about the apple, your counter-example does not disprove existence of gravity - or flaws in proportional representation between sovereign states - it in fact supports it, you just fail to see how.
> Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital?
If that's the arrangement that is the condition of the union between the rural area and the capital - perfectly normal. I know Bill Gates has much more shares of Microsoft than I do and I don't feel bad about it. Why should I feel bad about those things?
This is going to make one hell of an argument for Chinese communism in a few years.
The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
A statistic that has stuck in my head is the prediction [0] that in 2040, 70% of the US population will be represented by 30 Senators, while 30% of the population will be represented by 70 Senators.
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance.
Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend.
The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally.
It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.
We shouldn't talk about Senator John For voted for or against bill Y, but rather California voted for or against bill Y. The individuals ought not matter except to their State's governments/legislatures.
It affected literally every design decision of this nation between founding and the civil war.
“Slavery” is used an excuse to not think critically about things from before the civil war that you don’t like.
I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island
CA had the third-lowest population of all US states, yet nobody was saying CA didn't "deserve" two Senate seats because of that.
(Source: 1850 Census)
Bigger states aligning and pushing measures that are in their interests rather than in smaller states interests is called democracy.
The opposite is called privilege based on state of residence.
Also in countries like India, this could offer a perverse incentive for states to refrain from population control policies.
Also some states having larger populations than others is a historical accident.
India: You assume states work against each other and populations automatically favor their states over the federation they belong to. If that's the case, you have a cultural problem to solve first. I doubt this is the case in the US right now.
And yes, there are various reasons for some state to be populous. It is irrelevant with the question on whether all the peoples' vote should have equal weight.