|
>> I made a mistake -- it was actually called the Three-fifths
>> Compromise, not the two-thirds compromise. I was wondering why Google was having trouble with that theory. :-)
Thanks for clearing that up. Unfortunately 'true' democracy is harder to define than 'one-person-one-vote',
or even 'one-person-one-vote-one-value'. In Australia (generally considered to be a good democracy, legislation has to
pass through both the House of Representatives and the Senate to become
law. NSW and Tasmania (Australian states) have 12 senators each, but NSW has
more than 10 times the population. This was basically the terms of the 'fair'
treaty that all states agreed to form the federation. 100 years later, guess which state gets the most idiot subsidies? The US has the electoral college system (which I don't fully understand), but
is also open to distortions (though probably less than the Tasmanian example). >> But my point remains unchanged: anything other than one person, one vote isn't
>> true democracy. Just because the US occupiers will appoint a group of Shiites
>> to represent the folks in the south, and some Kurds to represent the north,
>> doesn't mean that democracy will have broken out. In terms of Iraq - yes, the US faces a major test of its character. However it
is unrealistic to expect a 'perfect' democracy in Iraq when it doesn't exist
(as far as I know) in any other country in the world. There are also doubts about whether democracy will actually work in many
countries - a topic for a coming article.
| 
