Want this question answered?
Yes.
The colonists were British people, and as such, they felt entitled to elected representation in the British Parliament. The British government did not see things that way, and so there were no Members of Parliament from the colonies. "No taxation without representation" is the colonists' encapsulation of their demand to be treated as British citizens.
I assume you are referring to how the states are represented in the federal legislature. The small states wanted equal representation; that is, they wanted all states, regardless of population size, to have the same number of votes in the congress. The large states argued in favor of proportional representation, where votes would be apportioned by the size of the population. The compromise was, of course, to have a bicameral legislature, one with two houses, one having proportional representation, the other having equal representation.
The southern colonies looked bad because of slavery
Spain does not have a Prime Minister and a King. Spain has a Presidente del Gobierno (President of the Government) and a king. Having a President and a king is not bad for Spain.
Eye for an Eye - 2003 Taxation with Bad Representation 3-38 was released on: USA: 2005
slaves
Having an effective government that that develops and upholds laws for the benefit of the comunity it rules is a good idea. You have but to look at countrys where government control is loose or unstable to understand that country's in Western Europe for instance are the safest and most comfortable places to to live.
The FHA can help with a bad credit home loan by allowing one to get a mortgage despite having bad credit. They are loans insured by the federal government.
good
I asked this ?
The middle colonies treated them better. But in southern colonies they were mostly treated pretty bad.