On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 11:39:09PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 05:01 PM 3/11/2003 +0000 Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> >Or should decision making be based on population, so that China and > >India, gain power, and smaller states, like France or the US, have > >less? The `one adult, one vote' method enjoys widespread legitimacy. > > Absolutely not. Indeed, any suprnational system that is basically > controlled by China and India would enjoy very little legitimacy in > places of the world that are thousands of miles away. > > If you were a Mexican, and 99% of your country opposed something, but > the policy was enacted anyways on the strength of Chinese and Indian > voters, how would you feel about your governance? First of all, China should not be in such an organization since it is not a liberal democracy. It makes no sense to give a country votes proportional to the population when the country is not a democracy. India, on the other hand, is a democracy. To answer JDG's question about Mexico vs. India, I would feel that my government did a poor job of campaigning in India. Almost the same thing could be said about California vs. North Dakota, with North Dakota voting for one presidential candidate and California another, and California's vote having much more weight than North Dakota's. It seems to work in the US. I think such a system would force US governments to spend more time considering and campaigning for world opinion, which would be a good thing (much like Presidential candidates vie to win California). -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
