[apeman81]

Thank God our forefathers recognized the inherent weakness of a pure democracy and decided to use instead a representative democracy.

We see those inherent weaknesses in the U.N. I certainly hope Social Studies teachers around the country are taking advantage of this splendid example in order to teach students how poor a philosophy of “One man, one vote” is for the governance of men.

He could show them how one man could rule all others when a unanimous vote is required. Imagine a town thusly governed. One man decides to self interest before the group. They would have to give into his demands before they could enact even the most benevolent of rules.

I don’t think, however, that such is likely to take place. Not enough time in class to get past the important, everyone must think exactly alike “tolerance” lessons.

[Defiant]

One man one vote was a Brennan opinion in the 60s that changed our Constitution considerably. There was nothing unconstitutional about having State senates that protected interests of rural areas, for example, as demonstrated by the US Senate. Yet, only 40 years old, that platitude is one of the most widely accepted notions in American political thought.