Of course you have the right to your opinion (even if I disagree with you, which I do). So I won't bother mincing words where I have already stated my opinion. However:
is a bunch of crap. In a democracy the people are represented equally by their power to vote. In the United States Congress, each state is representated equally in the Senate and then by population in the House, this is in order to give a proper balance and say in government for both each state and the majority vote. This was a check and balance put into place by the smaller states so that they always would have an equal say in government and not be obscured by the larger more populous states.
It's not a bunch of crap, I wasn't talking specifically about the United States, I was talking generally about Republics, and since about 65% of the nations of the world call themselves republics the US doesn't have a monopoly on defining what a republic is or how it works, The French fifth republic works quite differently than does the United States. Finland claims to be a republic but has a government quite similar to that of the other Scandinavian nations except for the fact that they still retain monarchs(without power) as their heads of state by tradition, and instead their Prime Minister leads the nation, Finland has an elected President instead.
Hell, some of these supposed republics can hardly be called democracies(China and formerly the USSR comes to mind), hell, the only common denominator seems to be "not ruled by a monarch" and I'm not 100% sure about that one either.
And yes I'm aware of why the United States senate/house of representatives works the way it does, and it seems hopelessly outdated. A system made for a different time, when communication was complicated and it took time getting a message from one end of the nation to the other(and the seat of government is very much located at a corner of the nation).
Back then when the state governments had more freedom in how they ruled their subjects it made sense because the Federal Government had much less actual power and definite problems exercising what power it had.
But these days the Federal Government is the de facto centre of power, and it's officials is elected in what seems to be a manner far removed from the typical definition of democracy, a manner which makes it incredibly difficult for the people to make their voices heard. It has more in common with the aristocracy of medieval times than it does with the concept of democracy with all the power concentrated to a small elite rather than the people.
In case you were not aware of it each state in the Union has its' own government and militia (known as the National Guard), that is to a certain extant autonomous from the national government. Laws vary from state to state and each state raises its' own taxes to support itself from within. If one wished to equate America as a number of small countries under a united rule, they would be very much on the mark. The extant of a states autonomy from a United rule was very much a reason for the American Civil War as slavery was.
I'm aware that each state has their own government and some military, but the de facto power lies more with the Federal Government in Washington(it maintains the military which dwarfs that of the combined state militias in terms of power and equipment) than it does with the state governments, they have some freedoms in how they write their laws but they lack too any freedoms to be compared with a number of small countries under united rule, for example the Supreme Court has ruled that States expressly don't have the right to secede from the Union, much unlike the United Kingdom(which can more correctly be seen as smaller countries under united rule since these smaller countries can actually choose to go back to being their own countries).
Yes that was the case for the American Civil War, and the states fighting for more liberty from the Federal Government lost.
There are several points you raised that are very argumentitve but I will allow you to just answer me this :
If (part of the reason America formed its' own united government in the first place by the way) then do you even know why The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries?
Something to think about.
At least formally it has to do with removing obstacles for trade, the movement of goods and persons, most of the laws that the European Parliament votes on at least tangentially relate to trade and/or the movement of goods etc.
The courts hasn't gotten involved with how nations punish criminals for crimes that isn't related to trade etc except for the fact that the EU charter explicitly prohibits the death penalty for any crime.
And yeah I know that the US Federal Government was originally supposed to just be a facilitator for streamlining trade etc between the states. So yeah, the EU may very well go down the same path as the United States eventually(I hope it doesn't), what currently speaks out against that is that Europe is a lot less homogenized than the US states were even back in the beginning.
And yes I'm quite argumentative, I like a good debate
