How did the compromise betwen the small and large reflect the american political values of represtative govt.?

Answer 1

Small and large what? States? Landholders? WWF wrestlers?

Answer 2

iqstrike: well, the United States isn't a democracy (nor a regime, North Korea contains a regime, Iran contains a regime; the term is used too loosely) anyway, so it's not really a contradiction. As you say, it's a representative government and there is a insulating lair between the President/cabinet and the general population. It's a compromise between having imposed leaders and letting the people choose their own leaders. The people elect their state politicians, then those politicians elect the president. Will it go away? Hell no, not as long as there is a two party system in place.

Answer 3

It's how on the Federal level we wound up with a bicameral legislature. The House is based on levels of population, so states with larger populations got more representatives than smaller states, which at the minimum would have at least one Representative. In the Senate each state has an equal number of Senators (2), regardless of the population level of a state.

Answer 4

It is meaningless, just a facade of fairness to trick people into thinking that the regime is democratic. Representative democracy is a contradiction in terms and cannot exist in the real world. Its purpose is to limit the number of people those in power have to control and bribe. But people love the narcotic of believing in fantasies.