> 1 person == 1 vote ...within the region the person lives so as to avoid a few large clumps of city dwellers living on 2% of the land area ruling it all over

> 1 person == 1 vote ...within the region the person lives so as to avoid a few large clumps of city dwellers living on 2% of the land area ruling it all over the 'rednecks' in the 98% 'flyover country'. Those city dwellers would not like to have countryfolk lording it over them either so why should the opposite be taken as a given? This may work for a small country like the Netherlands where a fast cyclist can cross the whole country within a day but it does not for a large one like Canada where there are provinces the size of large countries with a population less than a large town - Nunavut covers a larger area than Mexico with a population below 40.000. A better solution would be to split the vote into a few parts, each relating to specific areas of government. National matters - national defence, international relations, more or less the core tasks of a narrowly defined "small government" - can go directly according to the 1 person/1 vote principle and as such will be shaped by city dwellers. Regional (or 'state' in USA terms) matters are a different story, here it makes more sense to let the people living in the region have enough of a voice to be truly represented without being outnumbered by the large voting blocks in a few large cities on the other side of the country. Local matters should be decided by those living in the directly affected area - city, town or county. This ends up looking quite a lot like the structure theoretically used in the USA which also shows the problems which arise when such a model is used with larger governmental domains - national and state - expanding their powers by taking them away from lower levels.