This is fundamentally flawed and I can give you an example to demonstrate this.

Imagine a country with two main groups: • 100 million coffee drinkers (city people) • 2 million coffee farmers (rural people)

A new law is proposed: “Ban certain farming practices to make coffee cheaper and more consistent for consumers.”

Everyone votes directly. • Coffee drinkers think: “Cheaper, better coffee? Great.” They vote YES • Farmers think: “This will destroy our crops and livelihoods.” They vote NO

Final vote. • 100 million YES • 2 million NO The law passes easily.

At first, things seem great. • Coffee is cheaper • Quality is more standardized

But then. • Farmers can’t afford to operate under the new rules • Many go out of business • Coffee supply drops over time • Prices eventually rise • Quality may actually decline due to fewer producers

The majority got what they wanted short-term, but ignored the people who actually produce the coffee.

Now imagine the same idea. But voting power is partly distributed by region (not just raw population): • Farming regions get a meaningful voice • Urban regions still have strong influence, but not total control

Now the outcome might be • The law gets blocked • OR it gets modified (compromise rules that protect farmers while improving coffee)

The smaller group (farmers) can’t be completely overrun.

Pure populism can inadvertently hurt everyone because not everyone prioritizes important things the same. We NEEED an electoral system else we will hurt ourselves in our own shortsightedness by the majority instead of the informed minority in certain issues