Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Telconi]

Because the alternative is society unravelling at the seams.

I dont see Nevada or California collapsing anytime soon.

Then you're a fool.

[Ors Might]

Because demoncracy requires safeguards to prevent the majority from simply imposing its will on the minority. Or do you disagree with protections for minorities?

Place of residence is not one of them. Land area does not vote, neither do farms or trees or urban centers.

Right. Where you live has no influence over what issues you face whatsoever.

[San Lumen]

I dont see Nevada or California collapsing anytime soon.

Then you're a fool.

How will society collapse because your vote doesnt count more than others?

[Napkiraly]

How is control of one house rigging the government?

Because in Nevada for example control would never change. 90 precent of the population would be subject to the whims of 10 percent. That is the definition of tyranny of the minority.

No it wouldn't. Las Vegas would control one house, the rural areas the other. Balance.

And do you know the last time Chicago was Republican? Long ass time. It's been over 80 years since they've had a Republican mayor. But I guess it's okay for rural people to live under one party rule?

[San Lumen]

Place of residence is not one of them. Land area does not vote, neither do farms or trees or urban centers.

Right. Where you live has no influence over what issues you face whatsoever.

I never said that.

[San Lumen]

Because in Nevada for example control would never change. 90 precent of the population would be subject to the whims of 10 percent. That is the definition of tyranny of the minority.

No it wouldn't. Las Vegas would control one house, the rural areas the other. Balance.

And do you know the last time Chicago was Republican? Long ass time. It's been over 80 years since they've had a Republican mayor. But I guess it's okay for rural people to live under one party rule?

60 percent of the population is in Chicagoland. Why should someone in sparsely populated county get more say than the majority of the population? Is having one party rule in Chicago bad too? Should there be a separate mayor for the few Republicans there?

[Kernen]

No it wouldn't. Las Vegas would control one house, the rural areas the other. Balance.

And do you know the last time Chicago was Republican? Long ass time. It's been over 80 years since they've had a Republican mayor. But I guess it's okay for rural people to live under one party rule?

60 percent of the population is in Chicagoland. Why should someone in sparsely populated county get more say than the majority of the population?

Because otherwise Chicagoland gets to govern laws for the whole state, even though they occupy a minute fraction if it, and what works in Chicagoland doesn't necessary work out in the boonies.

[San Lumen]

60 percent of the population is in Chicagoland. Why should someone in sparsely populated county get more say than the majority of the population?

Because otherwise Chicagoland gets to govern laws for the whole state, even though they occupy a minute fraction if it, and what works in Chicagoland doesn't necessary work out in the boonies.

Once again there is this magical thing called a committee as well as debate. They dont just pass everything and some small town gets absolutely nothing. Those legislators get to add things to the budget and get a say just like someone in Chicagoland does.

[Napkiraly]

No it wouldn't. Las Vegas would control one house, the rural areas the other. Balance.

And do you know the last time Chicago was Republican? Long ass time. It's been over 80 years since they've had a Republican mayor. But I guess it's okay for rural people to live under one party rule?

60 percent of the population is in Chicagoland. Why should someone in sparsely populated county get more say than the majority of the population? Is having one party rule in Chicago bad too? Should there be a separate mayor for the few Republicans there?

"It's bad for me to live under a one party system but for others it's great"

The pattern continues with you, I see.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because otherwise Chicagoland gets to govern laws for the whole state, even though they occupy a minute fraction if it, and what works in Chicagoland doesn't necessary work out in the boonies.

Once again there is this magical thing called a committee as well as debate. They dont just pass everything and some small town gets absolutely nothing. Those legislators get to add things to the budget and get a say just like someone in Chicagoland does.

And what happens when the committee is 75% Chicagoland and they simply ignore what the other side has to say in a debate?

[Kernen]

Because otherwise Chicagoland gets to govern laws for the whole state, even though they occupy a minute fraction if it, and what works in Chicagoland doesn't necessary work out in the boonies.

Once again there is this magical thing called a committee as well as debate. They dont just pass everything and some small town gets absolutely nothing. Those legislators get to add things to the budget and get a say just like someone in Chicagoland does.

Debate only works when one side wants to be convinced. A committee only works when it is evenly staffed between interest groups.

Those legislators would get shouted down, and the urban majority would continue voting for their own interests at the expense of the rural minority. This is why the US is a republic. The division may not be equal, but it is equitable.

[San Lumen]

Once again there is this magical thing called a committee as well as debate. They dont just pass everything and some small town gets absolutely nothing. Those legislators get to add things to the budget and get a say just like someone in Chicagoland does.

And what happens when the committee is 75% Chicagoland and they simply ignore what the other side has to say in a debate?

I doubt that occurs.

Should a statewide candidate that wins a majority of votes in that area therefore getting the most votes overall not be elected because their opponent got more land area?

[Kernen]

And what happens when the committee is 75% Chicagoland and they simply ignore what the other side has to say in a debate?

I doubt that occurs.

Under your system, it would. Under your system, New York, California, Florida, and Texas would run the US.

Should a statewide candidate that wins a majority of votes in that area therefore getting the most votes overall not be elected because their opponent got more land area?

Yes. The people in that land area should get to chose their representation on equitable footing with the rest of the state.

[Washington Resistance Army]

And what happens when the committee is 75% Chicagoland and they simply ignore what the other side has to say in a debate?

I doubt that occurs.

Bullshit. How many times in recent American political history can you name where a politician from one side got someone from the other party to change their vote via debate?

[San Lumen]

I doubt that occurs.

Under your system, it would. Under your system, New York, California, Florida, and Texas would run the US.

Should a statewide candidate that wins a majority of votes in that area therefore getting the most votes overall not be elected because their opponent got more land area?

Yes. The people in that land area should get to chose their representation on equitable footing with the rest of the state.

land area should not matter more than votes. So therefore you would support going back to pre Reynolds v sims?

In some states such as Nevada that would mean one party would always win every statewide office. 90 percent of the population is in three counties. In fact most states would see one party control for virtually every statewide office

[The Lone Alliance]

Because the alternative is society unravelling at the seams.

I dont see Nevada or California collapsing anytime soon.

California is seeing a massive population exodus due to high taxes and other policies, it's also the state with the largest Rich Poor divide in the entire nation.

A Democratic one party state has the largest economic inequality in the nation. Something isn't right in California.

[Ors Might]

And what happens when the committee is 75% Chicagoland and they simply ignore what the other side has to say in a debate?

I doubt that occurs.

Should a statewide candidate that wins a majority of votes in that area therefore getting the most votes overall not be elected because their opponent got more land area?

What protections are in place to keep it from occurring?

[Kernen]

Under your system, it would. Under your system, New York, California, Florida, and Texas would run the US.


Yes. The people in that land area should get to chose their representation on equitable footing with the rest of the state.

land area should not matter more than votes. So therefore you would support going back to pre Reynolds v sims?

Land area should matter more than population if it means that all individuals in the state have equitable representation.

In some states such as Nevada that would mean one party would always win every statewide office. 90 percent of the population is in three counties.

That would also be inequitable. Its possible to balance the system so it's essentially equitable for everybody.

I don't believe SCOTUS should ever rule on redistricting.

[San Lumen]

I doubt that occurs.

Should a statewide candidate that wins a majority of votes in that area therefore getting the most votes overall not be elected because their opponent got more land area?

What protections are in place to keep it from occurring?

To keep what from occurring? The person with the most votes shouldn't be elected?

[San Lumen]

land area should not matter more than votes. So therefore you would support going back to pre Reynolds v sims?

Land area should matter more than population if it means that all individuals in the state have equitable representation.

In some states such as Nevada that would mean one party would always win every statewide office. 90 percent of the population is in three counties.

That would also be inequitable. Its possible to balance the system so it's essentially equitable for everybody.

In a case like Nevada they wouldn't. How would balance in a extreme case like that?

[Kernen]

Land area should matter more than population if it means that all individuals in the state have equitable representation.


That would also be inequitable. Its possible to balance the system so it's essentially equitable for everybody.

In a case like Nevada they wouldn't. How would balance in a extreme case like that?

It ain't my job to balance it. I don't have the technical ins and outs to propose a solution. But I find the current electoral system tolerable.I'm in favor of anything that gives city dwellers less authority over my quiet rural future.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Land area should matter more than population if it means that all individuals in the state have equitable representation.


That would also be inequitable. Its possible to balance the system so it's essentially equitable for everybody.

In a case like Nevada they wouldn't. How would balance in a extreme case like that?

Because one side would totally dominate the house and the other side would dominate the senate, balance. If either side wants something to get done they must come together and find some equal ground and not just ignore the other.

[Ors Might]

What protections are in place to keep it from occurring?

To keep what from occurring? The person with the most votes shouldn't be elected?

To keep Chicagoland from simply ignoring the rest of the state. What legal protections are in place to keep that from occurring?

[San Lumen]

In a case like Nevada they wouldn't. How would balance in a extreme case like that?

It ain't my job to balance it. I don't have the technical ins and outs to propose a solution. But I find the current electoral system tolerable.I'm in favor of anything that gives city dwellers less authority over my quiet rural future.

We are not discussing the electoral college here although it does violate one man one vote. We are talking about legislatures and statewide offices. Do you think 10 percent of the population should have veto power over ninety percent as in the case of Nevada?

[Kernen]

It ain't my job to balance it. I don't have the technical ins and outs to propose a solution. But I find the current electoral system tolerable.I'm in favor of anything that gives city dwellers less authority over my quiet rural future.

We are not discussing the electoral college here although it does violate one man one vote. We are talking about legislatures and statewide offices. Do you think 10 percent of the population should have veto power over ninety percent as in the case of Nevada?

I think you should stop mischaractarizing my statement. The power should be equitably divided so both rural and urban interests are balanced.

It is a reasonable debate tactic to try to maneuver the other side into saying something you can use. Unfortunately for you, you're really bad at it.