Whilst I don't agree with you calling this a vacuous argument I think you do make some useful points. > It can never be right to assign the majority of power t

Whilst I don't agree with you calling this a vacuous argument I think you do make some useful points. > It can never be right to assign the majority of power to a minority of voters. Agreed in principle. Although how this works in a presidential system where there is only one President, it's unclear why someone with 70 million and 1 votes should get 100% of the power and the person with 70 million gets zero. > There is an argument for the minority to have some powers. Agreed, and I think the veto and supermajority powers are good examples. > And your arguments about the the higher value of rural populations is equally ridiculous. "One person one vote" is a fundamental principle, and for every oh-so-important-farmer in Montana I don't think they are as ridiculous as you make out. I'll let the arguments made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority stand for themselves. I'd note that many democratic countries put in place specific representation for under-represented minorities, and that isn't generally seen as awarding the presidency to the minority. > Tying political power to land isn't democracy, it's feudalism. This sounds right, but it's important to note this isn't the same thing. This isn't about allowing only landowners to vote. I'd argue very very strongly against that!