Kal Alexander wrote:

RogerM wrote:
Because it doesn't provide for 'one man - one vote'. 'To a degree'
isn't sufficiently democratic. What about the degree to which it goes
against the will of the majority?

Why should it? We are not a pure democracy. Our founding fathers
never meant for us to be controlled by something as erratic as the
will of the majority.


The problem with that, is that the alternative is control by the will of
a tiny minority. Do you really think that is better?

--

People who go looking to be offended will rarely be disappointed

The ultimate purpose of humanity is to judge God.

For those who ca it's would HAVE, should HAVE, and could HAVE.