Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Conserative Morality]

Uh, yeah, a country tearing itself apart and more than a million people dying is what most people would call decline.

Is that why America emerged from it more powerful than it was before? A strange species of decline, this.

...I mean, involvement in a major war doesn't inevitably lead to decline (see: America in the World Wars). I don't think CM is saying it'd be a fun time, and I don't agree with his implication that a second civil war would lead to some sort of national rejuvenation, but it is a bit silly to ignore history and just say all wars have negative consequences for everyone.

IF things got bad enough for a second Civil War to be in the cards, then the resulting bloodletting would be positive insofar as it forces a resolution between two forces that have become so diametrically opposed as to damage the functioning of the society.

But I'm of the opinion that the opposition is too comfortable to actually try something that monumentally stupid. If yon Cassius had a lean and hungry look, I might fear him, but he's watching football with a bag of chips in his hand. I don't think that part of his entertainment is bitching about liberals and the government makes him dangerous.

[Kubra]

...I mean, involvement in a major war doesn't inevitably lead to decline (see: America in the World Wars). I don't think CM is saying it'd be a fun time, and I don't agree with his implication that a second civil war would lead to some sort of national rejuvenation, but it is a bit silly to ignore history and just say all wars have negative consequences for everyone.

Wars have negative consequences for a lot of folks, like, well, everyone honestly. Some of them (often a lot of them) get killed, people starve, refugees get displaced, infrastructure is destroyed leaving the nation in worse shape than it was before. A civil wart is doubly bad, but it's by definition your own country get fucked on both sides of the conflict.

But alas, CM apparently likes the idea of inflicting pain and suffering upon millions, I wish I could say I'm surprised.

pax romana is pax all the same

[Darussalam]

The sovereign unit in the modern era and future is cities. Rural areas are trying to hold back the eschaton.

Balkanize US into sovereign city-states

[Irou]

The sovereign unit in the modern era and future is cities. Rural areas are trying to hold back the eschaton.

Balkanize US into sovereign city-states

How about no

[Conserative Morality]

pax romana is pax all the same

Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant

[Kubra]

pax romana is pax all the same

Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant

This but as a prescription

[Sahansahiye Iran]

Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant

This but as a prescription

Don't you mean proscription?

[Kubra]

This but as a prescription

Don't you mean proscription?

Nope, prescription.

[Conserative Morality]

Don't you mean proscription?

Nope, prescription.

Praetor, proscribe this dog!

[Kubra]

Nope, prescription.

Praetor, proscribe this dog!

instructions unclear, prescribing dogs

[Bakery Hill]

wow ur woke

But really, one of the achievement of liberal philosophy is its focus on protecting the minority against the majority in a system that is by its nature majoritarian. Classically this has usually meant the privileged few against the slobbering evil unionised mob, but not always so. Federalism one such structure that exists to protect smaller units by giving them influence over the state. This prevents them from being persecuted and keeps the nation as it exists viable. We need more of it not less. A "fuck the dumb rednecks in flyover country" politics will only accelerate the polarisation and decline of the United States. Is that your goal?

The point is that the "units" are arbitrarily chosen in this case, and have widely different population figures. I don't like geographical splits of the vote in any case (even the Westminister system ends up in practice effectively disenfranchising most people, so there's something to be said about the German hybrid system). But there really is no justification for keeping splits with different numbers of people in it, just because they're based on some historical precedent. People in flyover country aren't suddenly worth less because they choose to move to New York, and vice versa. There's nothing magical about the land they reside in that makes them extra important.

As per usual I think you overrate just how globalised and flexible everyone else is. Justification and magic isn't the point. Political realities are the point, and if a smaller region with a certain kind of political ideals and interests is feeling swamped by the majority they'll want to leave. In the abstract that's fine by me. I have no great attachment to the US state. But the break up of Yugoslavia wasn't pretty and was based on roughly the same rationale (though perhaps in reverse).

[Bakery Hill]

wow ur woke

But really, one of the achievement of liberal philosophy is its focus on protecting the minority against the majority in a system that is by its nature majoritarian. Classically this has usually meant the privileged few against the slobbering evil unionised mob, but not always so. Federalism one such structure that exists to protect smaller units by giving them influence over the state. This prevents them from being persecuted and keeps the nation as it exists viable. We need more of it not less. A "fuck the dumb rednecks in flyover country" politics will only accelerate the polarisation and decline of the United States. Is that your goal?

Polarization, yes, decline, no.

"W-we're on t-top of the world, the only way is up! We're Americans! We c-can do anything!"

[Conserative Morality]

Polarization, yes, decline, no.

"W-we're on t-top of the world, the only way is up! We're Americans! We c-can do anything!"

You get it.

[The East Marches II]

"W-we're on t-top of the world, the only way is up! We're Americans! We c-can do anything!"

You get it.

How about my fleet CM, why are we losing the tonnage war?

[Bakery Hill]

"W-we're on t-top of the world, the only way is up! We're Americans! We c-can do anything!"

You get it.

You can do a lot with optimism, it's no vice. You've just got to prayer to the Higher Power that your political system fixes itself and China catastrophically fucks up and then you'll probably be okay.

[The East Marches II]

The point is that the "units" are arbitrarily chosen in this case, and have widely different population figures. I don't like geographical splits of the vote in any case (even the Westminister system ends up in practice effectively disenfranchising most people, so there's something to be said about the German hybrid system). But there really is no justification for keeping splits with different numbers of people in it, just because they're based on some historical precedent. People in flyover country aren't suddenly worth less because they choose to move to New York, and vice versa. There's nothing magical about the land they reside in that makes them extra important.

As per usual I think you overrate just how globalised and flexible everyone else is. Justification and magic isn't the point. Political realities are the point, and if a smaller region with a certain kind of political ideals and interests is feeling swamped by the majority they'll want to leave. In the abstract that's fine by me. I have no great attachment to the US state. But the break up of Yugoslavia wasn't pretty and was based on roughly the same rationale (though perhaps in reverse).

A good post

[Conserative Morality]

How about my fleet CM, why are we losing the tonnage war?

Because no one wants to raise taxes to pay for it.

You can do a lot with optimism, it's no vice. You've just got to prayer to the Higher Power that your political system fixes itself and China catastrophically fucks up and then you'll probably be okay.

The political system needs to be fixed with greater polarization. As for the Chinese, I have faith in their ability to fuck themselves; they have become very good at it over the past three millenia.

[The East Marches II]

How about my fleet CM, why are we losing the tonnage war?

Because no one wants to raise taxes to pay for it.

You can do a lot with optimism, it's no vice. You've just got to prayer to the Higher Power that your political system fixes itself and China catastrophically fucks up and then you'll probably be okay.

The political system needs to be fixed with greater polarization. As for the Chinese, I have faith in their ability to fuck themselves; they have become very good at it over the past three millenia.

Rather because they want to cut it for welfare. Oh well, they will enjoy the welfare for a bit till automated repression visits them too :^)

[Bakery Hill]

How about my fleet CM, why are we losing the tonnage war?

Because no one wants to raise taxes to pay for it.

You can do a lot with optimism, it's no vice. You've just got to prayer to the Higher Power that your political system fixes itself and China catastrophically fucks up and then you'll probably be okay.

The political system needs to be fixed with greater polarization.

Interesting, how so?

As for the Chinese, I have faith in their ability to fuck themselves; they have become very good at it over the past three millenia.

And despite ups and downs they were a great power for the majority of that time. They're now quickly reversing their long modern decline. I can see them fucking up as well, but it would probably only slow rather than halt their advance. They have a lot more potential than America.

[Western-Ukraine]

Rural votes should of course be weighted against urban votes. The disincentivized rural populations need more reprensentation in politics and their interests cannot simply be crushed in favour of more populated urban voters.

[Thermodolia]

The two-house legislature of the US federal government arguably should, in this current system, be applied to state legislatures as well. Rural communities, being in the minority population, deserve an equal voice to urban communities.

But populations are unequal so there is no way you could draw a state legislature to give a supposedly equal voice unless you dont believe in one man, one vote.

Why should someone in Hamilton County my states least populous county get more of a say than someone in Brooklyn?

Flip side why should someone in Brooklyn dictate what someone in Hamilton County can do? Especially considering that said people in Brooklyn probably haven’t left NYC

[Thermodolia]

Not everyone is saying that rural communities should have more representation than urban communities, it should be EQUAL representation, do you not understand the difference between what equal means?

What I want is propositional representative way of voting, similar to what the people of Scotland have when they vote for the Scottish Parliament, we need eletoral reform, and I think proportional representational voting is the best way to ensure equal representation fro rual and urban communities have an equal voice in government.

I can’t believe that we agree on the same thing. PR system is best system. Also SL doesn’t want a fair voting system because they want a single party state

[Purgatio]

Rural votes should of course be weighted against urban votes. The disincentivized rural populations need more reprensentation in politics and their interests cannot simply be crushed in favour of more populated urban voters.

Your argument is that because urban voters are greater in number they should have their votes discounted? If that's the case, why does that principle apply only to urban/rural voters? Do you also support giving disproportionate representation to LGBT voters? Ethnic minorities? The disabled? Why only for rural voters if your principle is that any population that is smaller in number requires disproportionate weighting of their electoral voice?

The whole point of democracy is to represent the people. The people means every voter, every member of the electorate, equally. Unless you are proposing to weight the votes of every minority population to a greater extent, there is no reason why a rural voter deserves any special and unearned privileges.

[Thermodolia]

Nope. The closer you get to one person-one vote, the better.

Land doesn't have interests. People do. The location of the people is irrelevant to their value. If a small number of people live in the countryside somewhere and is outvoted by people who live in a city, that is no different to a small number of people in that city being outvoted by a majority in the same city. We need to stop enabling rent seeking and subsidy farming by rural communities.

All I’m hearing is “Fuck the poor” and “Scew the rural people”

[Thermodolia]

i dunno about this. If for example the majority of NYC wants a pipeline to run through upstate New York while the residences of that area have a majority that do not want it. Who should get the final say?

The larger majority.

So you favor might makes right?