I agree. However, the other side of the coin is that those content farms can turn up sensitive information, information that some people in government don't want to be public (see Wikileaks).
The work of a content farm is to produce low-quality content, and its sole purpose is to ensure that it is ranked highly when searched on the Internet, which is pretty different from what Wikileaks does and its purpose, I'd say.
What I'm trying to say is that since the work of most content farms differ from the work of websites such as Wikileaks, and it's content farms that are widespread on the Internet instead of Wikileaks, the abundance of false information that is probably read by less-educated people living in rural areas implies that perhaps they shouldn't be granted a heavier weight in their votes.
We never were a true democracy. We were set up as a republic. The whole democracy thing is a progressive thing that started in the early 20th century as a way to damage the republic. A true democracy is mob rule.
...which is why I suggested this:
A better system in my mind would be to allocate electors in each state to various candidates according to the percentage of votes they got in the state. Retain the Electoral College, if you're really that afraid of demagogues holding office, but impose a harsh penalty on faithless electors (unless they can provide sufficient and sound reasoning for their choices). It's not ideal, but it's still better than the complicated and misrepresentative system that you currently have.
Now, assume that the biggest difference between pure democracy and republic is that republic protects the interests of the minority and prevents 'majority-over-man', while pure democracy doesn't. (This is from what I've read.) This suggestion will allow for higher levels of democracy, while protecting the rights of the minority through faithless electors, whose decisions will be deemed to be constitutional or not by the state legislature. What's more, it wouldn't damage the republic nature of your country.
How about if we applied the same standard to the United Nations then? Instead of each member nation getting one vote, they'd get a number of votes proportional to their population.
In essence, China and India would dominate, and small nations would have essentially no voice whatsoever.
Wouldn't that be a good idea in your opinion?
So what you are saying is that, according to your analogy, it is best to remain the 'one state, one vote' voting mechanism in the UN, and allow states which comprise just 5% of the world population to pass a resolution, and ignore the opinion of the remaining 95% of the population?
Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me either.
When was the last time we had a true gentleman?
I don't know, but it's definitely not this election.
I pay much closer attention to my local governments. Hope that made sense.
