>>7597>A true democracy inevitably necessitates arms against your own nation, as inevitably the abused seek to leave.
A democracy is unjust and requires overthrow because it oppresses rural folk? (I feel like I'm overstating that somehow.)>>7599>How would land even indicate who it votes for?
By those associated with the land. Some say of democracy: one person, on vote. You might create a government with one acre, one vote. The vote would actually have to be made by those associated with that acre, of course.>Each state is a sovereign
I've always been a bit fuzzy on that word. Up until the Civil War it might have been permissible for states to reject federal authority altogether.>Would you like him to be charge in running the election throughout the entire country?
Administration of elections needn't be federal for a democratic vote for President. Probably, though, people would say a standard would make sense, through, yes. Perhaps you are right in the association.>competitive states vs solid-red/solid-blue states
OK. Good and bad, you could say. In a state established red or blue, a person's vote probably doesn't matter. In competitive states, votes matter much more. So it's a weird bias -- but I take it you think it's for the best.>>7600>not very utilitarian for us to be ruled by a minority
Right...undemocratic. You seem to be the minority, in this case, that feels perhaps a democratic election of President would be OK.