J. David Blackstone wrote:
> When they drafted the U.S. constitution, there was
> a huge debate over whether to base congressional representation on
> population per state or make each state equal. Both sides had a good
> claim to the other being unfair; giving a smaller state (Rhode Island,
> or Mac users) equal say with a larger one can seem unfair to the
> larger segment, and I think in this case it would be. ("No,
> seriously, guys, I think we should move the epoch to 1904.")
I agree with jdb. One equivalent vote per person opens the possibility
that some company in Redmond could assign 250 of its employees to
"go vote in that Perl thing and make it ours".
In fact, I'd be uncomfortable thinking that my vote counted as much as,
Also, I'd point out a weakness in the presidential analogy for Larry.
The President of the U.S. can only veto; any legislation he ignores
passes by default. Also, the President cannot introduce legislation.
Rather, Larry is like a king; and we are his ministers, courtiers, and
noblemen. We can argue til we're blue, debate, resolve, and vote; but
in the end, it's Larry who makes the decision.
By pressing down a special key It plays a little melody