Well, why wouldn't it make sense? People were governed and had different levels of say through the history. Perhaps the most extreme example would be the Fren

Well, why wouldn't it make sense? People were governed and had different levels of say through the history. Perhaps the most extreme example would be the French Revolution where the aristocracy had more votes per person than the common peasant, and we know whose heads rolled afterwards. The problem isn't game theory. The problem is that power attracts certain personalities that are not altruistic. The current iteration of having say in common decisions is explicitly trying to curb the maniacs from reaching/staying in power. > If we can make the world a little bit better, why not? Sure. But right now, will Trump sing Kumbaya, or is USA regretting the decision? If it was 40-40, imagine him buying 20% of the votes. "Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­ra­cy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­ra­cy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those oth­er forms that have been tried from time to time.…" - Churchill