Is a democracy legitimate if votes don't weigh the same?

[eniwetok]

50. I meant unreasonable...

As for your comment

The framers, from reading what they had to say way back when they set up the system, knew that evolution was inevitable thus they provided instruction for those transitions, it's up to present day citizens to figure out how to apply the tenets of the system to resolve problems (with technology and societal change for example).

I don't think you get it that the Constitution is a straightjacket. It simply can not adapt in any substantive way... because the formula for amending the Constitution is ridiculous... to the point it's virtually reformproof.... and demographic trends are making it more so. Yet, this issue goes unnoticed.

While there are some ideas in the Constitution I can appreciate, such as friction caused by checks and balances, I generally think it's construction is a mess... with key assumptions never clearly stated... such as that on powers and rights. Yes, there's the Ninth but it lacks the clarity of the Rights Of Man. And without an original clear statement on powers reserved vs what's not prohibited, there's been plenty of room for games such as Scalia played.

So, no, I'm not expecting the tenets of a fundamentally flawed system to be able to guide us. So aside from the antidemocratic nature of the Constitution it's created a political spectrum that is virtually braindead... locking out other needed perspectives from the halls of power.

What I DO expect is that Americans... left and right will keep making excuses for these defects. Constitution worship is, after all, our civic religion.