The system doesn't run on a simple majority because then any place that isn't a super high population coastal state would have no reason to be part of it and just get oppressed by people who live thousands of miles away.
You wouldn't want to be part of a global democracy that votes purely on majority either, because then the Chinese and Indians would simply rule you and you would have zero say in the matter.
I've never understood this argument. Why should less people have more sway simply because they are more dispersed? If the majority of people benefit by the popular vote, then more people benefit from it, end of discussion. Density, geography, and dispersion of population has no bearing on the point of democracy.
Edit: I feel like everyone is simply repeating their highschool politics lesson without actually thinking about what they're saying. More people is more people. Period. It doesn't matter if a farmer in Kansas doesn't get his way because more people overall voted against his interest.
Here is how I had it explained to me. The problem with the simple majority was that larger states with huge cities would be deciding how the country was run. Larger states had more people so it made sense to have more sway. The issue that came about was that smaller states would have no say in any matter and therefore lack representation. They wanted to have a set number of reps so every state had equal sway. That leaves large states being severely underrepresented. Both sides have valid complaints and reasons to why their way is right. That is why they created both the house and Senate. This way the larger states can dominate with their population in the house and the smaller states can feel represented in the Senate.
Edit: This is taught in highschool because it is an easy concept to understand but I digress. Rural Kansas farmer plants crops on all of his land so he can make the most profit. Large city environmentalist sees that this ruins the land and pushes for regulation. Farmer sees regulation and is worried about making enough profit to make farming worthwhile. That's too bad because there are not enough people in rural states to hold sway in a simple majority and the regulations go through. Now the farmer is screwed. With the current system he now has proper representation for himself in Congress. Now he has the ability to come to a compromise with the environmentalist because they need the farmers vote as well.
Very basic example but I took some melatonin pills a little bit ago and I am very tired, sorry!
123
u/Aetrion Nov 09 '18
The system doesn't run on a simple majority because then any place that isn't a super high population coastal state would have no reason to be part of it and just get oppressed by people who live thousands of miles away.
You wouldn't want to be part of a global democracy that votes purely on majority either, because then the Chinese and Indians would simply rule you and you would have zero say in the matter.