Try to imagine this on a European level.
Imagine that in a more unified European Union,a continental vote has one of two EU candidates winthe popular vote in, say, 20 nations out of 28,from Denmark and France to Estonia and Greece.But because the 28th nation is the most populous, the candidate who wins in Germany wins the whole game, meaning the eight nations “allied” with it (so to speak) beat out the 20 lesser-populated countries’ choice.
How many times would there be elections, how long would the EU endure, before all other nations woke up to the fact that their votes didn’t matter, that Germany (like California in the U.S.) was the dominant member, and indeed, that they started growling about getting ready to follow the UK in its Brexit vote?!No. The above scenario shows why, if the EU did want to go ahead with “a more closer union”, countries like Denmark, Belgium, and Portugal would refuse a system based on the one-man-one-vote, because they would become totally subjugated by the more populous countries — and who could blame them for that?
Countries like France, Germany, and Italy, on the other hand, would counter that a system in which each country has the same amount of votes is ridiculous and unfair, amounting to the loss of rights for tens of millions of people when their nations have five to 10 times the populations of their smaller neighbors — and who could blame them for that?
This is precisely the debate that occurred between the 13 former colonies, the small states (Delaware, Connecticut, South Carolina…) and the large states (Pennsylvania, Virginia, Masachusetts…), in the 1780s.
Leave a Reply