Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Kubra]

But a dictatorship or a system where one group has consistently more power over another via a rigged system is no better such weighting rural votes so they count more.

But the rural community wouldn’t necessarily have more power over urbanites, not if only one part of the legislature is based on population. Sure, you could argue that they have disproportional power but that isn’t the same as rigging the system. It forces two typically opposing groups to compromise to get what they want. And no, that isn’t what we have now. The majority getting what it desires is not a compromise between it and the minority group.

I agree fully, but hot take: the real difference in interest is rich and poor, not rural and urban.
Therefore, we ought to restructure the senate as a house of lords, and have strict property requirements for office and the vote.

[San Lumen]

But the rural community wouldn’t necessarily have more power over urbanites, not if only one part of the legislature is based on population. Sure, you could argue that they have disproportional power but that isn’t the same as rigging the system. It forces two typically opposing groups to compromise to get what they want. And no, that isn’t what we have now. The majority getting what it desires is not a compromise between it and the minority group.

I agree fully, but hot take: the real difference in interest is rich and poor, not rural and urban.
Therefore, we ought to restructure the senate as a house of lords, and have strict property requirements for office and the vote.

Those who rent should not be able to vote or run for office?

[Napkiraly]

I agree that it’d be a terrible system but it’d still be a “true democracy” as long as every citizen could vote. That’s kind of what I’m getting at. No reason to support democracy if democracy consistently fails you.

But a dictatorship or a system where one group has consistently more power over another via a rigged system is no better such weighting rural votes so they count more.

In only one house. Most people here want a balanced system, which means having one house that would represent urban/higher population areas.

[San Lumen]

But a dictatorship or a system where one group has consistently more power over another via a rigged system is no better such weighting rural votes so they count more.

In only one house. Most people here want a balanced system, which means having one house that would represent urban/higher population areas.

And what happens when the rural counties of Illinois dont want to pay for upgrades to the commuter rail system in Cook County or the EL train for example? Too bad?

[Ors Might]

But the rural community wouldn’t necessarily have more power over urbanites, not if only one part of the legislature is based on population. Sure, you could argue that they have disproportional power but that isn’t the same as rigging the system. It forces two typically opposing groups to compromise to get what they want. And no, that isn’t what we have now. The majority getting what it desires is not a compromise between it and the minority group.

It has already been demonstrated multiple times via extreme examples of how unfair a system like that would be such as Delaware, Illinois or Nevada.

You’re missing the point. Fairness is not what I’m looking for here, fairness is not the equivalent to rightness. What is right is making sure that both the majority and the minority are able to have their needs met.

[Telconi]

In only one house. Most people here want a balanced system, which means having one house that would represent urban/higher population areas.

And what happens when the rural counties of Illinois dont want to pay for upgrades to the commuter rail system in Cook County or the EL train for example? Too bad?

C O M P R O M I S E

[San Lumen]

It has already been demonstrated multiple times via extreme examples of how unfair a system like that would be such as Delaware, Illinois or Nevada.

You’re missing the point. Fairness is not what I’m looking for here, fairness is not the equivalent to rightness. What is right is making sure that both the majority and the minority are able to have their needs met.

And how are they not getting their needs met? How is someone in a small farming town getting less attention and representation then someone in a large municipality?

[Ors Might]

In only one house. Most people here want a balanced system, which means having one house that would represent urban/higher population areas.

And what happens when the rural counties of Illinois dont want to pay for upgrades to the commuter rail system in Cook County or the EL train for example? Too bad?

The urban representatives would have to negotiate with the rural representatives. In that specific scenario, they’d have to offer something in return.

[Telconi]

But the rural community wouldn’t necessarily have more power over urbanites, not if only one part of the legislature is based on population. Sure, you could argue that they have disproportional power but that isn’t the same as rigging the system. It forces two typically opposing groups to compromise to get what they want. And no, that isn’t what we have now. The majority getting what it desires is not a compromise between it and the minority group.

I agree fully, but hot take: the real difference in interest is rich and poor, not rural and urban.
Therefore, we ought to restructure the senate as a house of lords, and have strict property requirements for office and the vote.

I disagree with your assessment, I have far more in common with a wealthy landowner near my home than I have with a working class fellow in San Francisco.

[San Lumen]

And what happens when the rural counties of Illinois dont want to pay for upgrades to the commuter rail system in Cook County or the EL train for example? Too bad?

C O M P R O M I S E

Such as?

[Napkiraly]

In only one house. Most people here want a balanced system, which means having one house that would represent urban/higher population areas.

And what happens when the rural counties of Illinois dont want to pay for upgrades to the commuter rail system in Cook County or the EL train for example? Too bad?

Uh, no there would be negotiations. That is quite clear by the balanced system. I could easily flip this and say "What if Chicago doesn't want to pay for upgrades throughout rural Illinois. Too bad?"

The only difference of course is that my example actually happens.

How is this hard to wrap your head around? Honest question.

[Telconi]

C O M P R O M I S E

Such as?

Rural folks agree to pay for the bridge in exchange for urban folks agreeing to patch some potholes.

[Ors Might]

You’re missing the point. Fairness is not what I’m looking for here, fairness is not the equivalent to rightness. What is right is making sure that both the majority and the minority are able to have their needs met.

And how are they not getting their needs met? How is someone in a small farming town getting less attention and representation then someone in a large municipality?

You’ve been given plenty of examples. One such example that springs to mind is the government factory moving, completely screwing over the town’s residents.

[Telconi]

And how are they not getting their needs met? How is someone in a small farming town getting less attention and representation then someone in a large municipality?

You’ve been given plenty of examples. One such example that springs to mind is the government factory moving, completely screwing over the town’s residents.

People where I live literally repave "state maintained" roads with their own money...

[San Lumen]

And what happens when the rural counties of Illinois dont want to pay for upgrades to the commuter rail system in Cook County or the EL train for example? Too bad?

Uh, no there would be negotiations. That is quite clear by the balanced system. I could easily flip this and say "What if Chicago doesn't want to pay for upgrades throughout rural Illinois. Too bad?"

The only difference of course is that my example actually happens.

How is this hard to wrap your head around? Honest question.

You think there isn't negotiation currently? What do you think a budget is? Each county gets things it wants. Why do people have this fantasy that a representative from a rural community is mute in the legislature and gets no opportunity to speak, offer any amendments or get anything for their area?

[Ors Might]

But the rural community wouldn’t necessarily have more power over urbanites, not if only one part of the legislature is based on population. Sure, you could argue that they have disproportional power but that isn’t the same as rigging the system. It forces two typically opposing groups to compromise to get what they want. And no, that isn’t what we have now. The majority getting what it desires is not a compromise between it and the minority group.

I agree fully, but hot take: the real difference in interest is rich and poor, not rural and urban.
Therefore, we ought to restructure the senate as a house of lords, and have strict property requirements for office and the vote.

Hotter take: We eat the rich and the politicians.

[San Lumen]

And how are they not getting their needs met? How is someone in a small farming town getting less attention and representation then someone in a large municipality?

You’ve been given plenty of examples. One such example that springs to mind is the government factory moving, completely screwing over the town’s residents.

And that is a decision of the company not the government's choice.

[Telconi]

Uh, no there would be negotiations. That is quite clear by the balanced system. I could easily flip this and say "What if Chicago doesn't want to pay for upgrades throughout rural Illinois. Too bad?"

The only difference of course is that my example actually happens.

How is this hard to wrap your head around? Honest question.

You think there isn't negotiation currently? What do you think a budget is? Each county gets things it wants. Why do people have this fantasy that a representative from a rural community is mute in the legislature and gets no opportunity to speak, offer any amendments or get anything for their area?

It isn't a fantasy, it's literally a reality. He says "my county needs road work too!" And the legislature gives him a collective "fuck off rural scum" and passes a budget without him.

[Ors Might]

You’ve been given plenty of examples. One such example that springs to mind is the government factory moving, completely screwing over the town’s residents.

People where I live literally repave "state maintained" roads with their own money...

Hell, my family just moved and we’re already having to pay hundreds to fill our road with gravel. The funny thing is that we actually want the state to get involves but it refuses to take our land off our hands because of beauraucratic shit or something.

[San Lumen]

You’ve been given plenty of examples. One such example that springs to mind is the government factory moving, completely screwing over the town’s residents.

People where I live literally repave "state maintained" roads with their own money...

Are you seriously suggesting people pave the roads themselves in your area? That is such an absurd statement to espouse its laughable.

[Ors Might]

You’ve been given plenty of examples. One such example that springs to mind is the government factory moving, completely screwing over the town’s residents.

And that is a decision of the company not the government's choice.

The government factory deciding to move isn’t partly due to the government’s choices?

[San Lumen]

You think there isn't negotiation currently? What do you think a budget is? Each county gets things it wants. Why do people have this fantasy that a representative from a rural community is mute in the legislature and gets no opportunity to speak, offer any amendments or get anything for their area?

It isn't a fantasy, it's literally a reality. He says "my county needs road work too!" And the legislature gives him a collective "fuck off rural scum" and passes a budget without him.

Maybe if you took your blinders off you'd understand how your government works.

[Ors Might]

People where I live literally repave "state maintained" roads with their own money...

Are you seriously suggesting people pave the roads themselves in your area? That is such an absurd statement to espouse its laughable.

Its not uncommon. Sometimes the roads are so shitty that it’d be cheaper to fill the holes in with gravel than to get your car repaired.

[Telconi]

People where I live literally repave "state maintained" roads with their own money...

Are you seriously suggesting people pave the roads themselves in your area? That is such an absurd statement to espouse its laughable.

It isn't a suggestion, it's a "I have fucking participated in this."

[San Lumen]

Are you seriously suggesting people pave the roads themselves in your area? That is such an absurd statement to espouse its laughable.

It isn't a suggestion, it's a "I have fucking participated in this."

So you have literally paved state highways yourself?