Suffice to say that in a world of large states, the small states would not be the complete masters of their fate and thus their democracies would be contingent on the benevolence of larger states whose democratic character could not be assured or assumed. Thus, democracy would be an endangered species from outside if not from the inherent imperfection of those who make them up.
There seems to be a cycle in history where large nations consume small ones because the large ones are more powerful. But once the state gets to large it fractures into smaller entities. Then the cycle repeats. Small city states in the bronze age turned to empires then the bronze age collapse happened themacedonian empire fractured then the roman empire the original caliphate fractured once it became to big. Im sure there are more examples. Maby the US and EU are next
@josephJM Cannot say that I see that in any consistent pattern. You refer to the Bronze Age, but the idea of the state as it exists now did not exist then. The state as embodying nationalities was simply not an operative force at that time. Thus making comparisons difficult. The "states" of the Bronze Age were expressions of different values and priorities - and also of the capacity to inflict military dominance. The durability of states now is something different. More rooted in a sense of identity and history as opposed to mere geographic proximity. Thus we are in a world where Russia sits side by side with Monaco - to use that example.It is not that there is not some truth in what you say, but it is a bit too much of an overgeneralization. It overlooks that particularities that defined - or defines - each age.
Your right I was just speculating.
The biggest argument I've heard from people who are against democracy is that since it only elects politicians based on population votes alone, that would mean that only California and New York would be able to dictate all of the voting and governmental elections while flat out giving the smaller states and rural towns any voice.
Oh you mean just not an electoral college. I think you're still technically talking about a democratic republic right? i could be misconstruing the terms
Then all of the rural states would leave the union why wouldn't they.In a Country as big as the US the smaller states need a seat at the table. You can't have a single democratic government for 350 million people
Sure you can.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Neither would democrats if we switch to a pure popular vote the there would be a completely new. political dynamic, City folks vs rural. Also, you can just as easily say liberals only want to change the rules because they think they can win with new rules.
In that case, I fail to understand why many self-identified liberals who claim to care so much for minorities and ostracized groups, would want something like this in a country.
Yeah, it's a headscratcher.