[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I'd go with a popular vote.

I see your objection, but I guess it's just a matter of how you choose to think about it. I don't see a compelling reason to weight votes according to state residency. The states themselves aren't getting greater representation, really. People are just being represented equally. And as long as more people live in New York and California, New York and California's interests should play a greater role in national politics.

I was recently visiting Alberta (that's a province in western Canada; I hope not to patronize, but am unceasingly surprised when dealing with my American friends...) The place is politically quite disaffected, predominately because of media and politicians who have profited by selling Albertans the ever-tempting myth that their problems are due to, and their successes in spite of, persecution by the federal government.

Anyhow, I was there for five days. It very quickly become tiresome, being told that because I live in Ontario, which has over a third of the ridings represented in the federal parliament, I personally have some disproportionate say in how the country is run. There's a strange line of reasoning that personalizes the issue.

Right: The more populous areas have a greater say in how the country is run.

Wrong: Individual people in the more populous areas have a greater say in how the country is run.

Eventually, at a party, my patience went 'boink' and I confessed that, yes, Ontario is just a gigantic Tim Horton's (coffee shop) where we all sit around talking about how to vote Liberal and screw Alberta. To their credit, nearly half the people present seemed to realize I was joking.

To finally get on-topic, though: I say direct proportional representation, plus constitutional/procedural measures to protect the interests of less populous states.