I agree with you on that #1 comment, nobody has supreme power over the others but it pays to have families with a commission vote on your side.

Exactly, and to the extent a boss or voting bloc control the majority vote, they can control the Commission. I think the one man, one vote is being overstated. On the streets, the most powerful family will always have more influence, one way or another. It's like arguing that the United States and the Cameroon are equal in power since they both have a single vote at the UN general assembly.

Exactly, and to the extent a boss or voting bloc control the majority vote, they can control the Commission. I think the one man, one vote is being overstated. On the streets, the most powerful family will always have more influence, one way or another. It's like arguing that the United States and the Cameroon are equal in power since they both have a single vote at the UN general assembly.

I think ht2´s comparison is very good. Think of a functioning Commission in the same way as a functioning UN, before the collaps of the USSR.

In the 1960s, Lucchese could count on Gambino´s support in one matter, while Gambino could count on Lucchese´s support in another matter. At the same time, Bonanno could count on Profaci´s support in one matter, while Profaci could count on Bonanno´s support in another matter.

On street level, yes the Gambinos for example were much more powerful than the Pittsburgh Family. But keep in mind that the Pittsburgh Family had it´s representative on the Commission, speaking for them. So in a sense the Pittsburgh Family did have some influence on the Commission. In real life, and in real life politics, a small country like Cameroon has no influence in the UN or in the security council.