It is one of the things I find so amusing about the whole discussion: People with NO direct voice in choosing their national leader claiming America undemocratically or arbitarily restricts the individuals right to do so. Not that that is the only such advantage to our constitutional republic and its single member districts. Sure, there is pork, a notable disadvantage, but you know how people complain about "beltway politics" and "Washington is out of touch"? You should hear folks from Bergen, Trondheim or, well, anywhere but Oslo, really, talk about Oslo.

Imagine IN had about a million less people, but Indianapolis was nearly the same size, and everyone voted for the parties they wanted. Then the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, Socialists, etc. state party leaders all assigned Legislature seats based on the percentage of the state they won, and the Legislature elected one of its members Governor. Now imagine IN were nearly as big as CA and TX COMBINED.

How well would you expect the Legislature to represent the whole state given most of it were lifelong residents of urban Indianapolis? Of course, a Ft. Wayne, Gary or Terra Haute resident unhappy with something the state government did where they lived could always write any or all legislators and/or the governor. And, of course, they could all ignore that person, secure in knowing their seat remained safe as long as their party got decent statewide turnout (but especially in Indianapolis.)