Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Wallenburg]

Exactly, the US as a whole is a country divided into states. The UN is not a country divided into states.

Yet you people complain about "muh voting decided by land area" within states. No reason not to take proportional representation to a global level.

I'm not sure who you mean by "you people", but I don't complain about voting power being determined by land area. Mostly because it isn't. You need to read the US Constitution, specifically Article 1, sections 2 and 3; and Amendment 14, section 2. Few people would put forward the idiotic argument that the land should determine voting power.

And actually, there is a reason not to take proportional representation to the national level. The UN is not a democracy. It hosts members that are not democracies. It does not represent the people of the world, but rather the member states within it. And even then, it is designed to give a handful of countries absolute control over what the UN does.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yet you people complain about "muh voting decided by land area" within states. No reason not to take proportional representation to a global level.

I'm not sure who you mean by "you people", but I don't complain about voting power being determined by land area. Mostly because it isn't.

Tell that to San Lumen.

Few people would put forward the idiotic argument that the land should determine voting power.

Nobody does. Doesn't so some people from saying it does.

[Tobleste]

It is. By what measure is it not?

By the measure of having the same political freedom as our dear friends in the Middle East. You don't seriously consider countries that ban jokes, ban political parties and generally speaking are repressive as part of the free world do you? If so I shudder to think what your opinion of China is.

So Europe has the same political freedoms as the Middle East? I'm not sure why but I bothered to find an actual rating on freedom.

https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world

[Tobleste]

1. Err... no but the US is.

This conversation includes US states.

The UN isn't a democratic country so doesn't need to feel obligated to give out votes by population.

But we do give out votes by population. It's called the House.

2. Yeah they do but their government (which represents them at the UN) isn't democratic so giving them representation based on population isn't going to help the population much.

Doesn't matter, proportional representation=democracy=good.

3. What do you mean from the horse's mouth? Do you think I work at the UN?

You admitted that China should have more representation.
"But it's not-"
It literally doesn't matter.

Exactly, the US as a whole is a country divided into states. The UN is not a country divided into states.

Yet you people complain about "muh voting decided by land area" within states. No reason not to take proportional representation to a global level.

I don't think you're actually reading my posts. If you are, you're not bothering to understand them. Either way, responding to you is a dead end.

[Tobleste]

I've talks with some 2a supporters who are reasonable enough. Unfortunately, the ones on this site don't operate in good faith. They love guns and view everyone who disagrees as freedom hating monsters. Research be damned. 'Bigots' was the word used in this thread. Attempting to debate them is a waste of time because they just resort to 3 or 4 slogans like they're praying. Better to just ignore them and speak with people who actually care about the truth in a situation.

Genuine question, what good actually comes from arguing with them on the topic?

I've been really quite open to having a fun data filled debate on the topic with you but you keep refusing. I hate to say it friend but we're not the ones refusing to operate in good faith, that's yourself.

If that makes you feel better.

We're never going to agree. Based on my discussions with gun control opponents, generally speaking, my 'side's' priority is reducing violence and making people safer, yours is maximising access to guns. The two different priorities make it impossible for the two sides to agree on changes and neither side wants to learn the same things (one wants to learn ways to make people safer, the other wants to learn ways to discredit gun control) so why bother talking? I've tried before and it goes nowhere. Other people I've seen attempt to speak with gun control opponents just end up frustrated or depressed.

[Claorica]

I've been really quite open to having a fun data filled debate on the topic with you but you keep refusing. I hate to say it friend but we're not the ones refusing to operate in good faith, that's yourself.

If that makes you feel better. We're never going to agree. Generally speaking, my 'side's' priority is reducing violence and making people safer, yours is maximising access to guns. The two different priorities make it impossible for the two sides to agree on changes and neither side wants to learn the same things (one wants to learn ways to make people safer, the other wants to learn ways to discredit gun control) so why bother talking?

No, our side's priority is not infringing further on a right that we have made massive concessions on multiple times in history with little to no positive results.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This conversation includes US states.

But we do give out votes by population. It's called the House.

Doesn't matter, proportional representation=democracy=good.

You admitted that China should have more representation.
"But it's not-"
It literally doesn't matter.

Yet you people complain about "muh voting decided by land area" within states. No reason not to take proportional representation to a global level.

I don't think you're actually reading my posts. If you are, you're not bothering to understand them. Either way, responding to you is a dead end.

I reciprocate those feelings.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I've been really quite open to having a fun data filled debate on the topic with you but you keep refusing. I hate to say it friend but we're not the ones refusing to operate in good faith, that's yourself.

If that makes you feel better.

We're never going to agree. Based on my discussions with gun control opponents, generally speaking, my 'side's' priority is reducing violence and making people safer, yours is maximising access to guns. The two different priorities make it impossible for the two sides to agree on changes and neither side wants to learn the same things (one wants to learn ways to make people safer, the other wants to learn ways to discredit gun control) so why bother talking? I've tried before and it goes nowhere. Other people I've seen attempt to speak with gun control opponents just end up frustrated or depressed.

My priority more often than not is to prove your sides so called solutions won't actually do much of anything and I try to do my best to come with lots of data proving that assertion. I also enjoy the whole "is X idea constitutional" debate from time to time.

And you never know, I might just get you to agree with me. Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten an anti-gunner to at least be neutral on the topic.

[Tobleste]

If that makes you feel better.

We're never going to agree. Based on my discussions with gun control opponents, generally speaking, my 'side's' priority is reducing violence and making people safer, yours is maximising access to guns. The two different priorities make it impossible for the two sides to agree on changes and neither side wants to learn the same things (one wants to learn ways to make people safer, the other wants to learn ways to discredit gun control) so why bother talking? I've tried before and it goes nowhere. Other people I've seen attempt to speak with gun control opponents just end up frustrated or depressed.

My priority more often than not is to prove your sides so called solutions won't actually do much of anything and I try to do my best to come with lots of data proving that assertion. I also enjoy the whole "is X idea constitutional" debate from time to time.

And you never know, I might just get you to agree with me. Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten an anti-gunner to at least be neutral on the topic.

You'd possibly be the first gun control opponent to use data if that's the case.

I doubt I'd agree with you. We have entirely different priorities, values and moralities and want mutually exclusive things.

[Germanic Tropical Islands]

No proportional resprenstation is best and most fair.

[Freezic Vast]

No proportional resprenstation is best and most fair.

Apparently some people like San Lumen disagree with that notion.

[Telconi]

My priority more often than not is to prove your sides so called solutions won't actually do much of anything and I try to do my best to come with lots of data proving that assertion. I also enjoy the whole "is X idea constitutional" debate from time to time.

And you never know, I might just get you to agree with me. Wouldn't be the first time I've gotten an anti-gunner to at least be neutral on the topic.

You'd possibly be the first gun control opponent to use data if that's the case.

I doubt I'd agree with you. We have entirely different priorities, values and moralities and want mutually exclusive things.

But we're the ones not engaging amirite?

[Chan Island]

No proportional resprenstation is best and most fair.

How are you defining 'proportional'? If you mean a proportional electoral system like STV, then yes, obviously. FPTP is awful.

But if by that you mean 'each county should have an equal weight in representation', then, well, I'd dispute that it is either the best or the most fair.

[Germanic Tropical Islands]

No proportional resprenstation is best and most fair.

How are you defining 'proportional'? If you mean a proportional electoral system like STV, then yes, obviously. FPTP is awful.

But if by that you mean 'each county should have an equal weight in representation', then, well, I'd dispute that it is either the best or the most fair.

In holland we it based on seats and you have 150 seats and the voters are divided by seats so if you have 10% of votes 10 seats of 100 for example. Its pary list proportional

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It seems that rural voting weight is already implemented to an extent, in practice, by the electoral college.
Apologies in advance for the glitchy gap in the spoiler

Area	Votes	People/km	Pop. density per vote	Votes per pop. density
Alabama	9	37	4.111111111	0.243243243
Alaska	3	<1	Negligible	Negligible
Arizona	11	23	2.090909091	0.47826087
Arkansas	6	22	3.666666667	0.272727273
California	55	97	1.763636364	0.567010309
Colorado	9	20	2.222222222	0.45
Connecticut	7	286	40.85714286	0.024475524
D.C.	3	4,251	1417	0.000705716
Delaware	3	187	62.33333333	0.016042781
Florida	29	145	5	0.2
Georgia	16	68	4.25	0.235294118
Hawaii	4	86	21.5	0.046511628
Idaho	4	7	1.75	0.571428571
Illinois	20	89	4.45	0.224719101
Indiana	11	71	6.454545455	0.154929577
Iowa	6	21	3.5	0.285714286
Kansas	6	14	2.333333333	0.428571429
Kentucky	8	43	5.375	0.186046512
Louisiana	8	41	5.125	0.195121951
Maine	4	16	4	0.25
Maryland	10	238	23.8	0.042016807
Massachusetts	11	336	30.54545455	0.032738095
Michigan	16	67	4.1875	0.23880597
Minnesota	10	26	2.6	0.384615385
Mississippi	6	24	4	0.25
Missouri	10	34	3.4	0.294117647
Montana	3	2	0.666666667	1.5
Nebraska	5	9	1.8	0.555555556
Nevada	6	10	1.666666667	0.6
New Hampshire	4	57	14.25	0.070175439
New Jersey	14	470	33.57142857	0.029787234
New Mexico	5	6	1.2	0.833333333
New York	29	162	5.586206897	0.179012346
North Carolina	15	79	5.266666667	0.189873418
North Dakota	3	4	1.333333333	0.75
Ohio	18	109	6.055555556	0.165137615
Oklahoma	7	22	3.142857143	0.318181818
Oregon	7	16	2.285714286	0.4375
Pennsylvania	20	110	5.5	0.181818182
Rhode Island	4	394	98.5	0.010152284
South Carolina	9	62	6.888888889	0.14516129
South Dakota	3	4	1.333333333	0.75
Tennessee	11	61	5.545454545	0.180327869
Texas	38	40	1.052631579	0.95
Utah	6	14	2.333333333	0.428571429
Vermont	3	26	8.666666667	0.115384615
Virginia	13	81	6.230769231	0.160493827
Washington	12	41	3.416666667	0.292682927
West Virginia	5	29	5.8	0.172413793
Wisconsin	10	41	4.1	0.243902439
Wyoming	3	2	0.666666667	1.5

[Tobleste]

It seems that rural voting weight is already implemented to an extent, in practice, by the electoral college.
Apologies in advance for the glitchy gap in the spoiler

Area	Votes	People/km	Pop. density per vote	Votes per pop. density
Alabama	9	37	4.111111111	0.243243243
Alaska	3	<1	Negligible	Negligible
Arizona	11	23	2.090909091	0.47826087
Arkansas	6	22	3.666666667	0.272727273
California	55	97	1.763636364	0.567010309
Colorado	9	20	2.222222222	0.45
Connecticut	7	286	40.85714286	0.024475524
D.C.	3	4,251	1417	0.000705716
Delaware	3	187	62.33333333	0.016042781
Florida	29	145	5	0.2
Georgia	16	68	4.25	0.235294118
Hawaii	4	86	21.5	0.046511628
Idaho	4	7	1.75	0.571428571
Illinois	20	89	4.45	0.224719101
Indiana	11	71	6.454545455	0.154929577
Iowa	6	21	3.5	0.285714286
Kansas	6	14	2.333333333	0.428571429
Kentucky	8	43	5.375	0.186046512
Louisiana	8	41	5.125	0.195121951
Maine	4	16	4	0.25
Maryland	10	238	23.8	0.042016807
Massachusetts	11	336	30.54545455	0.032738095
Michigan	16	67	4.1875	0.23880597
Minnesota	10	26	2.6	0.384615385
Mississippi	6	24	4	0.25
Missouri	10	34	3.4	0.294117647
Montana	3	2	0.666666667	1.5
Nebraska	5	9	1.8	0.555555556
Nevada	6	10	1.666666667	0.6
New Hampshire	4	57	14.25	0.070175439
New Jersey	14	470	33.57142857	0.029787234
New Mexico	5	6	1.2	0.833333333
New York	29	162	5.586206897	0.179012346
North Carolina	15	79	5.266666667	0.189873418
North Dakota	3	4	1.333333333	0.75
Ohio	18	109	6.055555556	0.165137615
Oklahoma	7	22	3.142857143	0.318181818
Oregon	7	16	2.285714286	0.4375
Pennsylvania	20	110	5.5	0.181818182
Rhode Island	4	394	98.5	0.010152284
South Carolina	9	62	6.888888889	0.14516129
South Dakota	3	4	1.333333333	0.75
Tennessee	11	61	5.545454545	0.180327869
Texas	38	40	1.052631579	0.95
Utah	6	14	2.333333333	0.428571429
Vermont	3	26	8.666666667	0.115384615
Virginia	13	81	6.230769231	0.160493827
Washington	12	41	3.416666667	0.292682927
West Virginia	5	29	5.8	0.172413793
Wisconsin	10	41	4.1	0.243902439
Wyoming	3	2	0.666666667	1.5

Exactly. In the US, rural voters are already overvalued in the most important election. I think some want it that way in every level of government though which is obviously undemocratic.

[Claorica]

It seems that rural voting weight is already implemented to an extent, in practice, by the electoral college.
Apologies in advance for the glitchy gap in the spoiler

Area	Votes	People/km	Pop. density per vote	Votes per pop. density
Alabama	9	37	4.111111111	0.243243243
Alaska	3	<1	Negligible	Negligible
Arizona	11	23	2.090909091	0.47826087
Arkansas	6	22	3.666666667	0.272727273
California	55	97	1.763636364	0.567010309
Colorado	9	20	2.222222222	0.45
Connecticut	7	286	40.85714286	0.024475524
D.C.	3	4,251	1417	0.000705716
Delaware	3	187	62.33333333	0.016042781
Florida	29	145	5	0.2
Georgia	16	68	4.25	0.235294118
Hawaii	4	86	21.5	0.046511628
Idaho	4	7	1.75	0.571428571
Illinois	20	89	4.45	0.224719101
Indiana	11	71	6.454545455	0.154929577
Iowa	6	21	3.5	0.285714286
Kansas	6	14	2.333333333	0.428571429
Kentucky	8	43	5.375	0.186046512
Louisiana	8	41	5.125	0.195121951
Maine	4	16	4	0.25
Maryland	10	238	23.8	0.042016807
Massachusetts	11	336	30.54545455	0.032738095
Michigan	16	67	4.1875	0.23880597
Minnesota	10	26	2.6	0.384615385
Mississippi	6	24	4	0.25
Missouri	10	34	3.4	0.294117647
Montana	3	2	0.666666667	1.5
Nebraska	5	9	1.8	0.555555556
Nevada	6	10	1.666666667	0.6
New Hampshire	4	57	14.25	0.070175439
New Jersey	14	470	33.57142857	0.029787234
New Mexico	5	6	1.2	0.833333333
New York	29	162	5.586206897	0.179012346
North Carolina	15	79	5.266666667	0.189873418
North Dakota	3	4	1.333333333	0.75
Ohio	18	109	6.055555556	0.165137615
Oklahoma	7	22	3.142857143	0.318181818
Oregon	7	16	2.285714286	0.4375
Pennsylvania	20	110	5.5	0.181818182
Rhode Island	4	394	98.5	0.010152284
South Carolina	9	62	6.888888889	0.14516129
South Dakota	3	4	1.333333333	0.75
Tennessee	11	61	5.545454545	0.180327869
Texas	38	40	1.052631579	0.95
Utah	6	14	2.333333333	0.428571429
Vermont	3	26	8.666666667	0.115384615
Virginia	13	81	6.230769231	0.160493827
Washington	12	41	3.416666667	0.292682927
West Virginia	5	29	5.8	0.172413793
Wisconsin	10	41	4.1	0.243902439
Wyoming	3	2	0.666666667	1.5

Exactly. In the US, rural voters are already overvalued. I think some want it that way in every level of government which is obviously undemocratic.

We want it in state governments, which still have an massive capability of enforcing harmful laws on populations simply because "the majority said so"

[Tobleste]

You'd possibly be the first gun control opponent to use data if that's the case.

I doubt I'd agree with you. We have entirely different priorities, values and moralities and want mutually exclusive things.

But we're the ones not engaging amirite?

Not in good faith on that topic at least (and you're probably the worst of all when it comes to guns).

Either way, that topic isn't really the topic of this thread so I'm not participating in any further derailing.

[Tobleste]

Exactly. In the US, rural voters are already overvalued. I think some want it that way in every level of government which is obviously undemocratic.

We want it in state governments, which still have an massive capability of enforcing harmful laws on populations simply because "the majority said so"

That's what courts and the constitution and the federal government are for.

Why not over value minority votes, women's votes, poor voters, less educated voters, gay voters, Muslim voters, Buddhist voters or voters with serious medical conditions? Why not give every citizen a veto on anything the government proposes for that matter?

[Claorica]

We want it in state governments, which still have an massive capability of enforcing harmful laws on populations simply because "the majority said so"

That's what courts and the constitution and the federal government are for.

Why not over value minority votes, women's votes, poor voters, less educated voters, gay voters, Muslim voters, Buddhist voters or voters with serious medical conditions? Why not give every citizen a veto on anything the government proposes for that matter?

Except federalism (rightly) exists, and not all laws that harm specific harmful views are unconstitutional. (also, not like SCOTUS has royally screwed up before, amirite?)

[Tobleste]

That's what courts and the constitution and the federal government are for.

Why not over value minority votes, women's votes, poor voters, less educated voters, gay voters, Muslim voters, Buddhist voters or voters with serious medical conditions? Why not give every citizen a veto on anything the government proposes for that matter?

Except federalism (rightly) exists, and not all laws that harm specific harmful views are unconstitutional. (also, not like SCOTUS has royally screwed up before, amirite?)

True SCOTUS isn't perfect but undermining democracy would require a massive justification. "City people could back bad laws" doesn't seem a good one especially as most authoritarians seem to get more support from rural voters.

[Telconi]

Except federalism (rightly) exists, and not all laws that harm specific harmful views are unconstitutional. (also, not like SCOTUS has royally screwed up before, amirite?)

True SCOTUS isn't perfect but undermining democracy would require a massive justification. "City people could back bad laws" doesn't seem a good one especially as most authoritarians seem to get more support from rural voters.

Only if you have a fool view of "Authoritarian"

[San Lumen]

Exactly. In the US, rural voters are already overvalued. I think some want it that way in every level of government which is obviously undemocratic.

We want it in state governments, which still have an massive capability of enforcing harmful laws on populations simply because "the majority said so"

Why allow urban areas to vote at all then? How about only those who own land can vote?

Should someone who resides in Birmingham or Houston not be allowed to vote for agriculture commissioner?

[Washington Resistance Army]

We want it in state governments, which still have an massive capability of enforcing harmful laws on populations simply because "the majority said so"

Why allow urban areas to vote at all then? How about only those who own land can vote?

Should someone who resides in Birmingham or Houston not be allowed to vote for agriculture commissioner?

That last bit does seem pretty decent, yeah.

[San Lumen]

Why allow urban areas to vote at all then? How about only those who own land can vote?

Should someone who resides in Birmingham or Houston not be allowed to vote for agriculture commissioner?

That last bit does seem pretty decent, yeah.

Why?