> it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests.
Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.)
See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values.
Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family.
But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.
Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.)
See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values.
Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family.
But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.