My thinking is that the only way it would actually be legitimate is if it reflected the actual way things work, and population’s only one facet of that. If it was strictly proportional by population, the countries that actually run the show would simply ignore it, much like they do now. With a GDP component, and a certain amount of veto power, they’d be more likely to go along, and would also be able to block a certain amount of “bread and circuses” type legislation, which would be in everyone’s interest in the long run.
Well, I see your point with respect to pragmatics and keeping the UN constituent countries bound together. But when it comes to the moral parameter (i.e., that allowing present socio-economic stratification to affect political representation is “in everyone’s interest in the long run”), I strenuously disagree.
The Republicans are displaying greater cohesion, not greater obstinacy. And Republicans may or may not support policy that favors the wealthy, but they’re still elected by a majority who aren’t wealthy. Support for people like George Bush II and Sarah Palin are not the favorites of the wealthiest members of the party, they’re the favorites of the poorest.
Both.
Please. Even they themselves say as much. But, in a tradition of the elite as old as the existence of humankind, they conflate their interests with those of society as a whole.
We both know the our democracy is far from perfect. I would be content to let right-wingers spew all the lies they wish, provided that donations to candidates were limited to $100 a pop. But it ain’t so. And when you factor in voter disenfranchisement through differential per capita funding for election supplies … you get a government that’s not all that representative of the populace.
And that’s the thrust of the OP: make our electoral process representative of economic class–which you admit is “the strongest factor in politics.”
Well, that would imply each national government, regardless of form, is equally legitimately representative of its population. Unless you’re also going to institute a system of UN-supervised direct elections to the Security Council/General Assembly. Which would be politically impossible.
This comes across as deeply chauvinistic. Do you think all Chinese are inferior stupid subhumans, or just Maoists?
Me: Commies killed a bunch of people, but then the wiser commies moved away from communism and killed fewer people.
You: You’re saying that it’s wise to kill people?
Me: I’m saying that they’re better than the ones who killed -more- people.
You: You’re prejudiced against Chinese people aren’t you?
Me: 
Sorry, it was the metaphor. “In the land of the blind…” I inferred that you were condemning the *land *of China. I take your point.
You’re still wrong. Your so-called “wise” are still killing people, they’re just authoritarian capitalists now. If one wants to be a mass murderer, capitalism is no impediment.
The easiest way to ensure every economic class is more fairly represented is to make voting compulsory for everyone, as in Australia. It doesnt mean theres direct representation for millionaries but does mean the poor arent underrepresented in results in the way it is in voluntary voting systems.
In practise as said in this thread, you do seem to end up with rural/urban divides that dont meet neatly economically, as well as parties having control over candidates meaning ‘peoples choice’ candidates tend to end up being constrained unless they’re independents and theres a balance of power situation in the senate or the like.
In practise the middle class still seem to be the ones that hold electoral balance of power.
So my overall thinking is that probably less would change than you’d expect.
Otara
Ok, I’ll bite.
Why would we want to force people to vote who otherwise can’t be bothered to go to the local school or church to vote?
Do we really think that they’re going to have an informed vote, or that their input is going to be valuable in any way? Does anyone think that someone who can’t get off their ass long enough to go vote is going to have done much if any research or anything into what’s being voted on? I think there should be a certain amount of interest in the process (more than just being arsed to go vote, IMO), and if people can’t be bothered to go vote, then they reap what they sow.