Should Rural votes count more than Urban Votes?

[San Lumen]

In past threads Ive seen complaints about Urban areas outvoting rural areas and that votes should be counted differently somehow. In the US it is quite common that major urban centers strongly influence the vote of the rest of the state such as Washington state ( the nine counties of the Puget Sound region) Illinois (Cook County and its suburbs) New York (New York City, Long Island and Westchester County) and Florida (South Florida which includes Miami and Fort Lauderdale). I would think its possible in other countries too. Some people have suggested the votes of rural areas should count more than urban areas or redistricting should be done differently so urban areas don't have as many districts.

This is completely unfair and undemocratic. Why should Seattle, Portland OR, Chicago or Los Angeles and San Francisco get shafted out of their fair share of representatives in the state legislature or have their votes count less because more people live there and tend to vote a certain way? Why should the votes of rural county count more in statewide races? I simply don't see a explanation for it other than a rural-urban divide and resentment of cities. To me it also has a racial undertone to it. I've seen it in my state. Illinois its a big issue too considering Cook County (of which Chicago is the county seat) is 50 percent of the population.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1964 in the case of Reynolds V. Sims that giving rural areas more say in state government than urban areas was unconstitutional and established the principle of One person , One vote
Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority and summed it up perfectly by saying " Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." I agree with him completely and I don't see a reasonable argument against it.

Plus this could also be a question in other countries as well not just the United States.

What say you NSG? Should the votes of rural areas count more than urban areas?

[Major-Tom]

No, not at all, but I will say that the urban-rural divide is more polarized than one might think. Many urban precincts voted for Obama by 98%, compared to 1 or 2% for Romney. This is true in parts of Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Denver.

Meanwhile, rural precincts in places like, say, Oklahoma, went 80-90% for Romney. The biggest political polarizations in our society right now are urban vs rural and protectionist vs globalist. This election is the epitome of this divide, and its rearing its ugly head.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Just let eastern WA go it's own way ;_;

[Community Values]

No, do people actually suggest this?

[San Lumen]

No, do people actually suggest this?

Yes I seen it suggested more often than you might think.

[The East Marches]

Uhh.... its not that way in IL. Our whole state is dominated by a single city. We have no power compared to them.

[San Lumen]

Just let eastern WA go it's own way ;_;

That's never going to happen. The state legislature in Olympia would never approve it.

[Jumalariik]

Only if they vote for parties I like.... which they do.

[Cuprum]

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1964 in he case of Reynolds V. Sims that giving rural areas more say in state government than urban areas was unconstitutional and established the principle of One person, One vote

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority and summed it up perfectly by saying " Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." I agree with him completely and I don't see a reasonable argument against it.

Plus this could also be a question in other countries as well not just the United States.

What say you NSG? Should the votes of rural areas count more than urban areas?

No, one person, one vote, simple as that since we don't have an electoral college which would be quite necessary were I live.

[San Lumen]

Uhh.... its not that way in IL. Our whole state is dominated by a single city. We have no power compared to them.

more like a single county. Cook County as a whole casts about 50 percent of the vote. Do you think their votes should count less then the rest of the state?

[The East Marches]

Uhh.... its not that way in IL. Our whole state is dominated by a single city. We have no power compared to them.

more like a single county. Cook County as a whole casts about 50 percent of the vote. Do you think their votes should count less then the rest of the state?

No but I don't think they should decide shit (locally) for me. Its one thing to decide things on the state level. Now they are trying to muscle in on my county. They can fuck right off.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Just let eastern WA go it's own way ;_;

That's never going to happen. The state legislature in Olympia would never approve it.

Maybe one day they will, I'd move to the east in a heartbeat if that happened.

[San Lumen]

more like a single county. Cook County as a whole casts about 50 percent of the vote. Do you think their votes should count less then the rest of the state?

No but I don't think they should decide shit for me. Its one thing to decide things on the state level. Now they are trying to muscle in on my county. They can fuck right off.

So what are you suggesting exactly? What do you mean they are trying to muscle in on your county? They have more people therefore they get more representatives. That's how democracy works.

[United Empire of Humanity]

The people rule by majority, unless you like mass petit-bourgeoisie revolts and your economy being a shitter. Urbanity over rurality, forever and always!

Uhh.... its not that way in IL. Our whole state is dominated by a single city. We have no power compared to them.

Glorious Chicago.
Hey, invite 7 million people to Springfield or something, couldja?

[The East Marches]

No but I don't think they should decide shit for me. Its one thing to decide things on the state level. Now they are trying to muscle in on my county. They can fuck right off.

So what are you suggesting exactly? What do you mean they are truing to muscle in on your county? They have more votes therefore they get more representatives. That's how democracy works.

My county can control the roads, water rate usage and other things of that kind. Also most important, how my land is taxed. Now they want to strip that right of the county and give it to the State. The State is corrupt as fuck. We got the county thing inorder to keep our money from going into people's pockets and never coming back to the local area. Do you think its right that my tax money (a portion of which already goes to the whole state) should no longer be under local control?

[Individual Concerns]

Um, no.
I think whatever problems are percieved in the urban/rural divide can be better explained and addressed through the mechanics of districting.

[United Empire of Humanity]

So what are you suggesting exactly? What do you mean they are truing to muscle in on your county? They have more votes therefore they get more representatives. That's how democracy works.

My county can control the roads, water rate usage and other things of that kind. Also most important, how my land is taxed. Now they want to strip that right of the county and give it to the State. The State is corrupt as fuck. We got the county thing inorder to keep our money from going into people's pockets and never coming back to the local area. Do you think its right that my tax money (a portion of which already goes to the whole state) should no longer be under local control?

I don't think it really matters either way, but if it helps keep the countryside from doing something shitty in response, perhaps the counties should have guaranteed powers and Illinois ought to become a federation.
I wonder how a 102-unit federation would work hahaha.,.

[San Lumen]

Um, no.
I think whatever problems are percieved in the urban/rural divide can be better explained and addressed through the mechanics of districting.

So are saying rural areas should get more representatives than urban areas?

[The East Marches]

My county can control the roads, water rate usage and other things of that kind. Also most important, how my land is taxed. Now they want to strip that right of the county and give it to the State. The State is corrupt as fuck. We got the county thing inorder to keep our money from going into people's pockets and never coming back to the local area. Do you think its right that my tax money (a portion of which already goes to the whole state) should no longer be under local control?

I don't think it really matters either way, but if it helps keep the countryside from doing something shitty in response, perhaps the counties should have guaranteed powers and Illinois ought to become a federation.
I wonder how a 102-unit federation would work hahaha.,.

As long as my fucking roads get paid for. I don't think its asking for too much to be able to keep the education money and the road money from disappearing.

Edit: Your federation idea might work but the problem is that it could work. That won't do for our state government.

[United Empire of Humanity]

I don't think it really matters either way, but if it helps keep the countryside from doing something shitty in response, perhaps the counties should have guaranteed powers and Illinois ought to become a federation.
I wonder how a 102-unit federation would work hahaha.,.

As long as my fucking roads get paid for. I don't think its asking for too much to be able to keep the education money and the road money from disappearing.

Fair enough.
e: And I do imagine unitary states always dislike giving up power, which is why their autonomous regions tend to be full of gore and death, ethnic minorities, tiny populations or be otherwise irrelevant somehow to the rest of the national infrastructure and demography.

[Anollasia]

All votes should be of equal importance.

[The Alexanderians]

No, republicans would then have no competition in the US.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, republicans would then have no competition in the US.

In fairness, soon, there might be no competition for democrats.

[San Lumen]

All votes should be of equal importance.

yes! However some on NSG and some in my state and others would beg to differ.

[United Empire of Humanity]

No, republicans would then have no competition in the US.

They'd probably fracture anyway when the western farmers start trying to drain the Great Lakes and the Mississippi-Missouri drainage basin to make up for droughts and drained aquifers.