• in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 hours ago

      “It’s a much smaller population” literally your second sentence, or do you not comprehend your own writing? Why is their smaller population relevant?

      • Majorllama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I should have been more clear. I never said the words “egalitarianism” or “authoritarianism”.

        That would be those “either” of the things I was referring to me having not said.

        Smaller population simply means each person’s vote counts for more. Easier for small groups to have an effect when they only need to reach a smaller number of potential voters.

        EDIT: spelling

        • in4apenny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Smaller population simply means each person’s vote counts for more.

          What about the smaller tribes who live under strict patriarchies that can’t vote? Plenty examples of those in history and today (cults for instance). There are also examples of massive cities with egalitarian urban planning with no centralized temples or food storage. So again I ask, what makes you think population size has anything to do with their politics?

          • Majorllama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            30 minutes ago

            Dude who are you arguing with? I never said anything about those incredibly specific situations you’re talking about.

            I already gave two things that a smaller population size might effect when it comes to elections. I am sure there are many other things that having a smaller population affects that I haven’t even considered.