Separating urban and rural America.

[Conserative Morality]

"Democracy, but only when it favors me."

Wonderful. CSA, is that you?

That’s not what I said. Maybe I should have been more clear but I don’t value democracy for it’s own sake. If the current system has issues then it should change. For the record I don’t think the Electoral College is the best solution for fixing the lack of representation rural Americans would face otherwise but I don’t know what to replace it with.

In the absence of democracy, who decides that change?

Democracy is an all-or-nothing deal when you get down to it. You can slow it down or speed it up, but at the end of the day, the fundamental question is boolean.

[Telconi]

You’ve been told what his issue with urban voters is. It doesn’t matter if that’s how democracy works if it’s causing a significant number of people to be screwed over in the process. Democracy isn’t a goal in and of itself but an attempt at making a better society.

"Democracy, but only when it favors me."

Wonderful. CSA, is that you?

Meanwhile, San Lumen cheers public initiatives being overturned because it favors them...

Pot, this is kettle...

[Conserative Morality]

Meanwhile, San Lumen cheers public initiatives being overturned because it favors them...

Pot, this is kettle...

Am I San Lumen?

[Ors Might]

That’s not what I said. Maybe I should have been more clear but I don’t value democracy for it’s own sake. If the current system has issues then it should change. For the record I don’t think the Electoral College is the best solution for fixing the lack of representation rural Americans would face otherwise but I don’t know what to replace it with.

In the absence of democracy, who decides that change?

Democracy is an all-or-nothing deal when you get down to it. You can slow it down or speed it up, but at the end of the day, the fundamental question is boolean.

Like I said, I don’t know. What I do know is that there’s a problem that won’t go away if the only answer we give is “more democracy”. What would you do to address the issue? I’m genuinely open to suggestions.

[Telconi]

That’s not what I said. Maybe I should have been more clear but I don’t value democracy for it’s own sake. If the current system has issues then it should change. For the record I don’t think the Electoral College is the best solution for fixing the lack of representation rural Americans would face otherwise but I don’t know what to replace it with.

In the absence of democracy, who decides that change?

Democracy is an all-or-nothing deal when you get down to it. You can slow it down or speed it up, but at the end of the day, the fundamental question is boolean.

It has to be justified, a process that offers me no benefit and only detriment has no benefit to me.

Democracy only functions in a society in which the losers have some sort of guarantee they won't be punished by the winners simply because the winners won. If that guarantee doesn't exist, there's no point to democracy.

[Telconi]

Meanwhile, San Lumen cheers public initiatives being overturned because it favors them...

Pot, this is kettle...

Am I San Lumen?

Not sure, you have at the very least entered an existing argument on his side.

[Conserative Morality]

Like I said, I don’t know. What I do know is that there’s a problem that won’t go away if the only answer we give is “more democracy”. What would you do to address the issue? I’m genuinely open to suggestions.

There's no solution to this problem. We're past the point of compromise. We tried compromise. It got thrown back in our faces. So now it's (metaphorical) war. For nearly four decades now the rural regions of the country have fucked over the urban areas of the country for their own benefit. It's high time we grew a spine and used the machinery of democracy as it was intended - to reflect the will of the people.

I'm not actually proposing any radical changes or actions. Just simple things. Reduction of farm subsidies and tax breaks for rural areas. Support for mechanization and automation of primary and secondary industries. That sort of thing. The sort of thing that we told them we would help with, time and time again, and they refused, time and time again. So, now they get no help. They've written their own destruction. Don't call it a grave, it's the path they chose.

It has to be justified, a process that offers me no benefit and only detriment has no benefit to me.

Democracy only functions in a society in which the losers have some sort of guarantee they won't be punished by the winners simply because the winners won. If that guarantee doesn't exist, there's no point to democracy.

tbqh it sounds like you're an enemy of democracy who only sees it as a tool to selfishly defend your own interests.

[Conserative Morality]

Not sure, you have at the very least entered an existing argument on his side.

"Pro-democracy" is his side? Yet he's anti-democracy according to you?

I literally entered this argument with a pro-democracy statement angled towards a statement I percieved as anti-democracy. How is that, in your view, on his side?

At least get your accusations straight. Inconsistency makes you look bad.

[Telconi]

Not sure, you have at the very least entered an existing argument on his side.

"Pro-democracy" is his side? Yet he's anti-democracy according to you?

I literally entered this argument with a pro-democracy statement angled towards a statement I percieved as anti-democracy. How is that, in your view, on his side?

At least get your accusations straight. Inconsistency makes you look bad.

Tyranny of a plurality is a thing. Un-restricted democracy is bad. It's a pretty simple concept, one that people generally aknowledge.

[Conserative Morality]

Tyranny of a plurality is a thing. Un-restricted democracy is bad. It's a pretty simple concept, one that people generally aknowledge.

That's not an answer to the post you quoted.

[Telconi]

Tyranny of a plurality is a thing. Un-restricted democracy is bad. It's a pretty simple concept, one that people generally aknowledge.

That's not an answer to the post you quoted.

His side is evidently "Pro limited Democracy when the limits serve him, but pro unlimited democracy when the limits impede him."

Is that also your stance?

[Ors Might]

Like I said, I don’t know. What I do know is that there’s a problem that won’t go away if the only answer we give is “more democracy”. What would you do to address the issue? I’m genuinely open to suggestions.

There's no solution to this problem. We're past the point of compromise. We tried compromise. It got thrown back in our faces. So now it's (metaphorical) war. For nearly four decades now the rural regions of the country have fucked over the urban areas of the country for their own benefit. It's high time we grew a spine and used the machinery of democracy as it was intended - to reflect the will of the people.

I'm not actually proposing any radical changes or actions. Just simple things. Reduction of farm subsidies and tax breaks for rural areas. Support for mechanization and automation of primary and secondary industries. That sort of thing. The sort of thing that we told them we would help with, time and time again, and they refused, time and time again. So, now they get no help. They've written their own destruction. Don't call it a grave, it's the path they chose.

It has to be justified, a process that offers me no benefit and only detriment has no benefit to me.

Democracy only functions in a society in which the losers have some sort of guarantee they won't be punished by the winners simply because the winners won. If that guarantee doesn't exist, there's no point to democracy.

tbqh it sounds like you're an enemy of democracy who only sees it as a tool to selfishly defend your own interests.

It’s a fairly shitty thing to intentionally screw over millions of people. You realize that the complaints you have with rural communities are exactly the same as the ones they’d have if situation was reversed, yes? In a democracy, people vote for their interests or at least what they think their best interest is. Often times they form groups based on those interests. What I’m saying is that when one group heavily outnumbers another group, that is still a very significant minority, we have a balance of influence that just isn’t sustainable. It’s not the will of the people as you say but the will of the majority. There’s an important distinction.

[Conserative Morality]

It’s a fairly shitty thing to intentionally screw over millions of people.

They screwed themselves over. We're just not shielding them anymore. Really, the answer to "We're being screwed over by these people" shouldn't be "So let's keep protecting these people from their own decisions". All that does is create the kind of atmosphere of entitlement seen among them today.

You realize that the complaints you have with rural communities are exactly the same as the ones they’d have if situation was reversed, yes?

I don't remember being a blood-sucking parasite on the financial health of this country. Nor do I remember being a member of a minority of people who think their every wish should be catered to.

In a democracy, people vote for their interests or at least what they think their best interest is. Often times they form groups based on those interests. What I’m saying is that when one group heavily outnumbers another group, that is still a very significant minority, we have a balance of influence that just isn’t sustainable. It’s not the will of the people as you say but the will of the majority. There’s an important distinction.

So which of those two is "82% v. 18%"?

One fifth of the country has disproportionate influence compared to their population size.

To be clear, this isn't a liberal v. conservative thing. We fight that battle in the suburbs.

[Telconi]

It’s a fairly shitty thing to intentionally screw over millions of people.

They screwed themselves over. We're just not shielding them anymore. Really, the answer to "We're being screwed over by these people" shouldn't be "So let's keep protecting these people from their own decisions". All that does is create the kind of atmosphere of entitlement seen among them today.

You realize that the complaints you have with rural communities are exactly the same as the ones they’d have if situation was reversed, yes?

I don't remember being a blood-sucking parasite on the financial health of this country. Nor do I remember being a member of a minority of people who think their every wish should be catered to.

In a democracy, people vote for their interests or at least what they think their best interest is. Often times they form groups based on those interests. What I’m saying is that when one group heavily outnumbers another group, that is still a very significant minority, we have a balance of influence that just isn’t sustainable. It’s not the will of the people as you say but the will of the majority. There’s an important distinction.

So which of those two is "82% v. 18%"?

One fifth of the country has disproportionate influence compared to their population size.

To be clear, this isn't a liberal v. conservative thing. We fight that battle in the suburbs.

Well that settles that then I suppose...

[Ors Might]

It’s a fairly shitty thing to intentionally screw over millions of people.

They screwed themselves over. We're just not shielding them anymore. Really, the answer to "We're being screwed over by these people" shouldn't be "So let's keep protecting these people from their own decisions". All that does is create the kind of atmosphere of entitlement seen among them today.

You realize that the complaints you have with rural communities are exactly the same as the ones they’d have if situation was reversed, yes?

I don't remember being a blood-sucking parasite on the financial health of this country. Nor do I remember being a member of a minority of people who think their every wish should be catered to.

In a democracy, people vote for their interests or at least what they think their best interest is. Often times they form groups based on those interests. What I’m saying is that when one group heavily outnumbers another group, that is still a very significant minority, we have a balance of influence that just isn’t sustainable. It’s not the will of the people as you say but the will of the majority. There’s an important distinction.

So which of those two is "82% v. 18%"?

One fifth of the country has disproportionate influence compared to their population size.

To be clear, this isn't a liberal v. conservative thing. We fight that battle in the suburbs.

It’s not really entitlement to want to see your concerns represented in a democracy. I thought you were for all that. That’s kind of what I’m trying to get across. You want to punish a group, regardless of what it’s individuals have done, for seeking meaningful representation and using that representation to try to solve their issues. You will only make things worse with that mindset.

[Conserative Morality]

It’s not really entitlement to want to see your concerns represented in a democracy.

It absolutely is if you think your concerns trump the concerns of everyone else.

I thought you were for all that. That’s kind of what I’m trying to get across. You want to punish a group, regardless of what it’s individuals have done, for seeking meaningful representation and using that representation to try to solve their issues. You will only make things worse with that mindset.

"Seeking meaningful representation"

That's a funny way of saying "Making a modern day 3/5ths compromise".

Seeking meaningful representation I would associate more with exercising the institutions of democracy via assembly, speech, and suffrage, and less with gaming systems and making political backdeals for disproportionate influence.

That's just me, though. I was never a fan of the Tammany Hall system of governance.

[San Lumen]

They screwed themselves over. We're just not shielding them anymore. Really, the answer to "We're being screwed over by these people" shouldn't be "So let's keep protecting these people from their own decisions". All that does is create the kind of atmosphere of entitlement seen among them today.

I don't remember being a blood-sucking parasite on the financial health of this country. Nor do I remember being a member of a minority of people who think their every wish should be catered to.

So which of those two is "82% v. 18%"?

One fifth of the country has disproportionate influence compared to their population size.

To be clear, this isn't a liberal v. conservative thing. We fight that battle in the suburbs.

It’s not really entitlement to want to see your concerns represented in a democracy. I thought you were for all that. That’s kind of what I’m trying to get across. You want to punish a group, regardless of what it’s individuals have done, for seeking meaningful representation and using that representation to try to solve their issues. You will only make things worse with that mindset.

No one is punishing anyone except maybe some in Washington but thats not the discussion here.

In a democracy the number of representatives you get is based on your population. Its not a tit for tat that more populated areas give things up in exchange for you getting certain things. That's not how it works. We tried what your asking for and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Reynolds V Sims.

What would you change to the system?

[Ors Might]

It’s not really entitlement to want to see your concerns represented in a democracy. I thought you were for all that. That’s kind of what I’m trying to get across. You want to punish a group, regardless of what it’s individuals have done, for seeking meaningful representation and using that representation to try to solve their issues. You will only make things worse with that mindset.

No one is punishing anyone except maybe some in Washington but thats not the discussion here.

In a democracy the number of representatives you get is based on your population. Its not a tit for tat that more populated areas give things up in exchange for you getting certain things. That's not how it works. We tried what your asking for and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Reynolds V Sims.

What would you change to the system?

I couldn’t give you a specific answer. I simply don’t have it. All I know is that no matter which of the solutions proposed here we go with, someone is getting screwed over. I refuse to accept that. What we should be trying to do is examine the flaws of democracy in general and specifically that of America’s democratic system and try to come up with a solution that addresses as many concerns as possible.

[San Lumen]

No one is punishing anyone except maybe some in Washington but thats not the discussion here.

In a democracy the number of representatives you get is based on your population. Its not a tit for tat that more populated areas give things up in exchange for you getting certain things. That's not how it works. We tried what your asking for and it was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Reynolds V Sims.

What would you change to the system?

I couldn’t give you a specific answer. I simply don’t have it. All I know is that no matter which of the solutions proposed here we go with, someone is getting screwed over. I refuse to accept that. What we should be trying to do is examine the flaws of democracy in general and specifically that of America’s democratic system and try to come up with a solution that addresses as many concerns as possible.

Your the one saying their is flaws in the system so what would your ideal solution be?

[Ors Might]

I couldn’t give you a specific answer. I simply don’t have it. All I know is that no matter which of the solutions proposed here we go with, someone is getting screwed over. I refuse to accept that. What we should be trying to do is examine the flaws of democracy in general and specifically that of America’s democratic system and try to come up with a solution that addresses as many concerns as possible.

Your the one saying their is flaws in the system so what would your ideal solution be?

My ideal solution be is whatever allows the problems of both urbanites and those in rural areas to be addressed and solved without giving any group too much power. As I said, I don’t know how to accomplish that thus my willingness to see if anyone does.

[Conserative Morality]

My ideal solution be is whatever allows the problems of both urbanites and those in rural areas to be addressed and solved without giving any group too much power. As I said, I don’t know how to accomplish that thus my willingness to see if anyone does.

You see, that's the problem. You're operating on the assumption that both sides should have equal power. There's no reason for that other than that legacy systems and government gridlock have made it a politically viable option to pursue. No one says "Appalachia should have the same power as the rest of the country combined." Why consider the rural/urban divide this way?

[Ors Might]

My ideal solution be is whatever allows the problems of both urbanites and those in rural areas to be addressed and solved without giving any group too much power. As I said, I don’t know how to accomplish that thus my willingness to see if anyone does.

You see, that's the problem. You're operating on the assumption that both sides should have equal power. There's no reason for that other than that legacy systems and government gridlock have made it a politically viable option to pursue. No one says "Appalachia should have the same power as the rest of the country combined." Why consider the rural/urban divide this way?

I’m operating on the assumption that it’s fucking stupid to ignore millions of people and their grievances simply because there are millions more with different problems. You try to solve it all. I’ve said time and time again that the current way of making the rural areas have their complaints aired is flawed. I asked you if you had anything to replace it and all you did was engage in some revenge porn fantasy.

[San Lumen]

Your the one saying their is flaws in the system so what would your ideal solution be?

My ideal solution be is whatever allows the problems of both urbanites and those in rural areas to be addressed and solved without giving any group too much power. As I said, I don’t know how to accomplish that thus my willingness to see if anyone does.

The solution is very simple compromise and working together in the legislature. You dont achieve what you want by creating an unequally represented legislature or making certain votes count more than others.

[Ors Might]

My ideal solution be is whatever allows the problems of both urbanites and those in rural areas to be addressed and solved without giving any group too much power. As I said, I don’t know how to accomplish that thus my willingness to see if anyone does.

The solution is very simple compromise and working together in the legislature. You dont achieve what you want by creating an unequally represented legislature or making certain votes count more than others.

The problem is that doesn’t work. Rural areas still get ignored, making them prime pickings for politicians who make big promises but refuse to deliver. I agree with you that rural areas shouldn’t be given unfair legislative representation. But the fact remains that compromise and cooperation isn’t working in our favor. I’d like to change that but I can’t do that on my own.

[Washington Resistance Army]

My ideal solution be is whatever allows the problems of both urbanites and those in rural areas to be addressed and solved without giving any group too much power. As I said, I don’t know how to accomplish that thus my willingness to see if anyone does.

The solution is very simple compromise and working together in the legislature. You dont achieve what you want by creating an unequally represented legislature or making certain votes count more than others.

"Compromise" and "working together" is dead in the United States.