LOL you are about the 3rd or 4th person to completely misunderstand what I'm saying here. It's not the land, it's the people that live on that land. The US rejected the idea of mob rule to protect the less populous states from having just a few large sates running the entire country. In this example, you'd theoretically have one state ruling all 50. You can't see how that's fundamentally wrong?
There needs to be balance, one person owning the state of Alaska should not have more voting power than say 5 million people in TX for example. The way we setup the system was from 250 years ago, things have changed drastically since then.
Or rather, let's frame this differently. Imagine Utah has 99% of the population and those who live there have the same values as those who live in that state currently do. Would you want those people holding 99% of the power and control over government? I think you would not. If that were the case, you'd see eye to eye with me and the only reason you lust for a mob rule system is because you think it would lead to more political outcomes you agree with.
There is balance, that's why the large states have so much more power than the small states. What people are upset about is that 20 states can't overrule 30.
Not everything, but yes they should have a lot more say since they represent the vast majority of the population. It is the people that make this country great.
They do have more say in the current system, you realize that right? They just don't have a majority which means that if the people in the rest of the country disagree, the mob can't simply do whatever they please. In fact, it's a fairly brilliant system, most other systems would make the people in less populous states completely irrelevant in favor of letting a handful of cities control all of the power.
Yes they do have more say in the house, but not in senate or presidential election. Imagine if 90% plus of the population lives in Utah, guess where all the armed forces, the money for infrastructure, scientific advancements, etc will be coming from? Should they not have a lot more power to determine how those matters are decided.
In your example, that'd mean 99% of the U.S population enjoyed Utah's governance because they all located there. So yes, a 99% majority should represent more than the 1% scattered across the remaining 49 states.
Sounds like if they want that then they don't want to be a part of a "united states", instead they want to be their own independent country. If we're being serious, you wouldn't really want people in Utah determining the outcome of every single election and having the power to create legislation for you on the other side of the country with no mechanism in which to resist those policies. In fact, you'd never make the argument that they should have even more power than they would because you'd want the extreme minority that would be the rest of the country to have some kind of say in matters of the state and you'd want that to me more than a token voice....otherwise, what incentive do those 49 other states have to stay in that union?
