Shadow Minister,

Australia does not have an Electoral College system.
People elect the party of choice to govern by
individual vote. In America states with smaller
populations have the same representation in government
as states with larger populations. Now is that fair?

Shadow Minister,

The following link explains more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/elections-electoral-college-voting.html

Foxy,

I never claimed that Aus had an electoral college system or that the Senate was similar which anyone sentient that actually read my post would have grasped. I am also fully conversant with the US system.

A few years ago Labor won power in South Australia in spite of getting 3% fewer votes on the 2pp basis due to gerrymandering.

No system is perfect, just as as a senator in NSW represents about 10x the number of voters as a Tasmanian senator.

Shadow Minister,

Read the link I gave from the New York Times.
Nothing more needs to be said.

Foxy, please stop taxing poor old SM's very limited brain capacity. He doesn't realise that each US state elects 2 senators, regardless of population, similar to Australia. SM has blind faith in The Donald, nothing he says or does upsets SM. All that our collection of far right ratbags see is Trumps politics are aligned with theirs. Fellas, is women's pussy grabbing a universal far right policy, or is it only a pacific policy of The Donald?

Maybe Trump was right about those American soldiers being "losers and suckers". Over 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, about the time Trump would have been eligible for military service, something people like Trump have always been able to dodge. The war was completely insane, the invasion of the small nation of Vietnam, by the most aggressive and powerful country on Earth, America.

Posted by Foxy-

"In America states with smaller populations have the same representation in government as states with larger populations. Now is that fair?"

Answer-

Firstly your nypost article has a pay wall even though it offers a "free account".
I generally don't have a problem with the federalism style of voting system but I favour Confederalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

It prevents the bloodthirsty practices of one state dominating the nation- as the states have equal representation in the Senate- this can still be compromised by party politics but it is one "Chinese Wall" measure to control creeping dictatorship and totalitarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

Immanuel Kant was an advocate of federalism, noting that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved even by a nation of devils" so long as they possess an appropriate constitution which pits opposing factions against each other with a system of checks and balances. In particular individual states required a federation as a safeguard against the possibility of war.

No systems are perfect but I trust those lower in the hierarchy more than those at the top. Perhaps those at the top national or state levels can be trusted to keep property records and similar tasks. I'd trust members of my own family to look after my interest more than I'd trust the state government.

It's similar to Socrate's "might is right" discussion.

But at least Foxy is consistent in her view that land should be shared equally by all people on the Earth- independent of their good or bad management.