Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Sougra]

The problem I see is that both are unequal to some degree.

On one hand, if we just simply state that one person equals one person, which is weighted towards urban areas, they can make decisions that severely impact the lives of people in rural areas. They could take away their land for new projects like pipelines, or building more urban areas, which would make it so that people in rural areas are at the mercy of people in urban areas. Also, if we're going to extremes like I've seen people theoretically pose, the majority controlling the lives of the minority created problems Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, British colonization, the problems with the Native Americans, among other things.

On the other hand, if the votes of people in rural areas are weighted equally against people in urban areas, it severely impacts not only what people what urbanites do, and potentially slows progress due to the people in rural areas sticking out for their own interests. Also, this would be undemocratic as it could easily lead to situations where 70% of people voted for something, and 30% voted against, but since most of the 30% were rural, they'd be considered equal or perhaps even that the decision becomes against something despite what people want.

There's probably more points I could've brought up, but the point is, none of these are truly equal, so it's really just choosing what you think is best. The only option that I see that could be truly equal is some combination of the two, but that's a pretty difficult thing to do.

[Kramanica]

Smug, elitist mindset of a lot of people.

How am I smug and elitist?

You pretty much just talk down to everyone and tell anyone who disagrees that they want a dictatorship.

[Kramanica]

Suburbs exist, surprisingly enough.

Nice reading comprehension.

Thanks.

[Kubra]

Fuck, what's up with all the condescension to rural dwellers in this thread?

such as

[San Lumen]

What assumptions have I made? Your the one making assumptions and generalizations about cities. I am neither shafting nor making fun of your area.

You literally just called my area a "little town" yet you don't know a damn thing about my community at all.

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

[Righteousistan]

Glad I caught this thread. We have a somewhat similar problem here in Virginia.

The crux of it is the lack of a Republican urban policy. You couldn't raise taxes and government spending high enough to fix the ills of places like Detroit, Camden, Chicago, etc. The GOP needs to devise a private sector-driven, tax abatement-induced, blueprint for taking on urban blight. Clearly the classic Democratic Party way has been an abject failure.

[Freezic Vast]

You literally just called my area a "little town" yet you don't know a damn thing about my community at all.

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

Assuming I dare listen to Bush Limbaugh.

That is low, even for you.

What I want is fair and equal representation, unless you can come up with a better solution I don't want to hear it.

[Kramanica]

You literally just called my area a "little town" yet you don't know a damn thing about my community at all.

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

Featured here: the smug, elitist mentality I'm referencing.

[Kubra]

Glad I caught this thread. We have a somewhat similar problem here in Virginia.

The crux of it is the lack of a Republican urban policy. You couldn't raise taxes and government spending high enough to fix the ills of places like Detroit, Camden, Chicago, etc. The GOP needs to devise a private sector-driven, tax abatement-induced, blueprint for taking on urban blight. Clearly the classic Democratic Party way has been an abject failure.

ok
so what does that mean

[Conserative Morality]

Assuming I dare listen to Bush Limbaugh.

That is low, even for you.

What I want is fair and equal representation, unless you can come up with a better solution I don't want to hear it.

Fair and equal representation?

How does "An equal say with every other person in the country" sound?

[Torrocca]

You literally just called my area a "little town" yet you don't know a damn thing about my community at all.

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

This is literally the smug elitism we're pointing out about you, San.

[The Lone Alliance]

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

Featured here: the smug, elitist mentality I'm referencing.

Bingo.

[Kubra]

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

Featured here: the smug, elitist mentality I'm referencing.

It's condescending to point out that getting gunned down in the street for thoughtcrime generally doesn't happen?

[San Lumen]

The problem I see is that both are unequal to some degree.

On one hand, if we just simply state that one person equals one person, which is weighted towards urban areas, they can make decisions that severely impact the lives of people in rural areas. They could take away their land for new projects like pipelines, or building more urban areas, which would make it so that people in rural areas are at the mercy of people in urban areas. Also, if we're going to extremes like I've seen people theoretically pose, the majority controlling the lives of the minority created problems Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, British colonization, the problems with the Native Americans, among other things.

On the other hand, if the votes of people in rural areas are weighted equally against people in urban areas, it severely impacts not only what people what urbanites do, and potentially slows progress due to the people in rural areas sticking out for their own interests. Also, this would be undemocratic as it could easily lead to situations where 70% of people voted for something, and 30% voted against, but since most of the 30% were rural, they'd be considered equal or perhaps even that the decision becomes against something despite what people want.

There's probably more points I could've brought up, but the point is, none of these are truly equal, so it's really just choosing what you think is best. The only option that I see that could be truly equal is some combination of the two, but that's a pretty difficult thing to do.

How would you combine the two? Several supposeded solutions were tired such as malapportionment or giving counties equal representation in state senates. They were struck rightfully struck down as unconstitutional and undemocratic

[Galloism]

You literally just called my area a "little town" yet you don't know a damn thing about my community at all.

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

Actually, that's not true. A town is typically an unincorporated community, although certain states do allow "towns" to exist as defined entities with limited powers (compared to a city). A city by definition is an incorporated municipality, and has a city hall. A town may or may not have a town hall, depending on whether it's incorporated. Also the Town hall is often a temporary use facility (IE, it's a Town Hall from 3pm to 5pm every second thursday; the rest of the time it's a Moose Lodge).

Towns are by definition not cities. They are also not villages.

[Farnhamia]

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

This is literally the smug elitism we're pointing out about you, San.

I feel a great disturbance in the Forum, as if everyone in a thread started talking about just one person and then were silenced. *glares*

[San Lumen]

Compare to Philadelphia it’s a little town. Town can be word used to refer to any municipality. Where did you get all the crazy assumptions about cities? Is what you hear on right wing radio the reason behind it and you want a unfair and undemocratic state government?

Assuming I dare listen to Bush Limbaugh.

That is low, even for you.

What I want is fair and equal representation, unless you can come up with a better solution I don't want to hear it.

You currently have that. You just don’t like it doesn’t favor your county over the more populus ones

[Torrocca]

So how about that equal representation for ruralites and urbanites, eh fellas?

[Conserative Morality]

So how about that equal representation for ruralites and urbanites, eh fellas?

Yes, I agree, rural folk should get precisely the same number of votes are urban folk.

[Kubra]

So how about that equal representation for ruralites and urbanites, eh fellas?

One man, one vote. No rural votes, no rural people. Urbanise the countryside.

[Sougra]

The problem I see is that both are unequal to some degree.

On one hand, if we just simply state that one person equals one person, which is weighted towards urban areas, they can make decisions that severely impact the lives of people in rural areas. They could take away their land for new projects like pipelines, or building more urban areas, which would make it so that people in rural areas are at the mercy of people in urban areas. Also, if we're going to extremes like I've seen people theoretically pose, the majority controlling the lives of the minority created problems Holocaust, slavery, apartheid, British colonization, the problems with the Native Americans, among other things.

On the other hand, if the votes of people in rural areas are weighted equally against people in urban areas, it severely impacts not only what people what urbanites do, and potentially slows progress due to the people in rural areas sticking out for their own interests. Also, this would be undemocratic as it could easily lead to situations where 70% of people voted for something, and 30% voted against, but since most of the 30% were rural, they'd be considered equal or perhaps even that the decision becomes against something despite what people want.

There's probably more points I could've brought up, but the point is, none of these are truly equal, so it's really just choosing what you think is best. The only option that I see that could be truly equal is some combination of the two, but that's a pretty difficult thing to do.

How would you combine the two? Several supposeded solutions were tired such as malapportionment or giving counties equal representation in state senates. They were struck rightfully struck down as unconstitutional and undemocratic

Did you not read the part where I said "that's a pretty difficult thing to do"? I never said there was a solution that I know of, just that the only option I see that makes it truly equal is a combination of the two. It doesn't mean that combination exists.

[Kramanica]

So how about that equal representation for ruralites and urbanites, eh fellas?

Yes, I agree, rural folk should get precisely the same number of votes are urban folk.

You don't understand representation much, do you?

[Freezic Vast]

Assuming I dare listen to Bush Limbaugh.

That is low, even for you.

What I want is fair and equal representation, unless you can come up with a better solution I don't want to hear it.

You currently have that. You just don’t like it doesn’t favor your county over the more populus ones

No we don't. What I want is a representative who actually represents me, and come November I'll have someone who doesn't represent me at all.

[Kramanica]

So how about that equal representation for ruralites and urbanites, eh fellas?

One man, one vote. No rural votes, no rural people. Urbanise the countryside.

Lol

[Bakery Hill]

Assuming I dare listen to Bush Limbaugh.

That is low, even for you.

What I want is fair and equal representation, unless you can come up with a better solution I don't want to hear it.

Fair and equal representation?

How does "An equal say with every other person in the country" sound?

Then the minority voice is drowned out, leading to discontent and the collapse of the common project. A compromise between separate units is the basis of all federalism everywhere.