Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Conserative Morality]

Interesting, how so?

By increasing polarization we can force the opposition to uphold ideas that are fading in popularity, making them less attractive as a whole and solidifying power in the hands of our own side in the long wrong, leading to an increasingly small and isolated opposition that will eventually fade away, allowing us to later splinter and squabble amongst ourselves without having to worry about them.

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.

lol

Good luck with that. I am sure their failure to cultivate human capital and aging population will serve them well in the future.

So you favor might makes right?

I acknowledge it more than favor it. That's the point of democracy - so that the government remains on the side of might - the majority - and not in its path.

[The Parkus Empire]

Interesting, how so?

By increasing polarization we can force the opposition to uphold ideas that are fading in popularity, making them less attractive as a whole and solidifying power in the hands of our own side in the long wrong, leading to an increasingly small and isolated opposition that will eventually fade away, allowing us to later splinter and squabble amongst ourselves without having to worry about them.

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.

lol

Good luck with that. I am sure their failure to cultivate human capital and aging population will serve them well in the future.

So you favor might makes right?

I acknowledge it more than favor it. That's the point of democracy - so that the government remains on the side of might - the majority - and not in its path.

The sides here are heavily regional. You can't really make regions like the Bible Belt disappear. You can try to use majority to subjugate them into powerlessness and force your politics on them, but this probably A Bad Idea long term, as it will pressure them to bank everything on executive representation, which in turn will pressure growth of executive authority.

[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.

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.

Why would it have to be fair? I simply believe that the rural system needs to be protected, and weighting the rural vote would do plenty to balance the odds.

EDIT: For sake of clarity, I don't support the principle that all minorities need the same treatment. In fact, there could be weights against some minorities, too. For example, votes from relatively new, first and second generation immigrants should be worth less than votes from the others. It's all for the sake of stability, since quick changes in demographics can too rapidly shift the political landscape in favour of radical policies.

[Purgatio]

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.

Why would it have to be fair? I simply believe that the rural system needs to be protected, and weighting the rural vote would do plenty to balance the odds.

EDIT: For sake of clarity, I don't support the principle that all minorities need the same treatment. In fact, there could be weights against some minorities, too. For example, votes from relatively new, first and second generation immigrants should be worth less than votes from the others. It's all for the sake of stability, since quick changes in demographics can too rapidly shift the political landscape in favour of radical policies.

I see, so you admit that you want an unequal political system which heaps unearned privileges and special treatment for a chosen demographic, at the expense of everyone else. You admit that no consistent or coherent set of principles supports your point of view. That's some refreshing intellectual honesty.

[Bakery Hill]

Interesting, how so?

By increasing polarization we can force the opposition to uphold ideas that are fading in popularity, making them less attractive as a whole and solidifying power in the hands of our own side in the long wrong, leading to an increasingly small and isolated opposition that will eventually fade away, allowing us to later splinter and squabble amongst ourselves without having to worry about them.

And why doesn't the same phenomenon work against you?

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.

lol

Good luck with that. I am sure their failure to cultivate human capital and aging population will serve them well in the future.

"Failure to cultivate human capital" (whatever that means) and an aging population is both structural problems that America has too. China however seems to have a better capacity to deal with them.

[Western-Ukraine]

Why would it have to be fair? I simply believe that the rural system needs to be protected, and weighting the rural vote would do plenty to balance the odds.

EDIT: For sake of clarity, I don't support the principle that all minorities need the same treatment. In fact, there could be weights against some minorities, too. For example, votes from relatively new, first and second generation immigrants should be worth less than votes from the others. It's all for the sake of stability, since quick changes in demographics can too rapidly shift the political landscape in favour of radical policies.

I see, so you admit that you want an unequal political system which heaps unearned privileges and special treatment for a chosen demographic, at the expense of everyone else. You admit that no consistent or coherent set of principles supports your point of view. That's some refreshing intellectual honesty.

Yes and no. I don't admit having an inconsistent set of beliefs. My beliefs generally favour the general status quo against large changes coming with rapid changes in demographics, among voters in this case. Urbanization can quickly shift the policies we uphold. I believe that those changes are coming too quickly, leaving behind the rural population and rushing into very uncertain times.

[Purgatio]

I see, so you admit that you want an unequal political system which heaps unearned privileges and special treatment for a chosen demographic, at the expense of everyone else. You admit that no consistent or coherent set of principles supports your point of view. That's some refreshing intellectual honesty.

Yes and no. I don't admit having an inconsistent set of beliefs. My beliefs generally favour the general status quo against large changes coming with rapid changes in demographics, among voters in this case. Urbanization can quickly shift the policies we uphold. I believe that those changes are coming too quickly, leaving behind the rural population and rushing into very uncertain times.

Changes are coming too quickly? Says who? Progress and demographic change is how communities have evolved literally through centuries, Middle Ages to the Industrial Revolution to the Information Age, every single time countries experience demographic and cultural shifts. What on Earth is wrong with that? And why demographically weight the electorate to favour rural groups who will deliberately hold back the nation's progress and hold the entire country hostage to their superstitious beliefs?

[The Parkus Empire]

and hold the entire country hostage to their superstitious beliefs?

How do you figure?

[Petrolheadia]

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.

Why would it have to be fair? I simply believe that the rural system needs to be protected, and weighting the rural vote would do plenty to balance the odds.

If so few people live under the countryside system, maybe it is not that good?

Just a possibility.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why would it have to be fair? I simply believe that the rural system needs to be protected, and weighting the rural vote would do plenty to balance the odds.

If so few people live under the countryside system, maybe it is not that good?

Just a possibility.

China must be the best country in the world, followed by India.

[Petrolheadia]

If so few people live under the countryside system, maybe it is not that good?

Just a possibility.

China must be the best country in the world, followed by India.

The China and India where people are abandoning rural life en masse?

[The Parkus Empire]

China must be the best country in the world, followed by India.

The China and India where people are abandoning rural life en masse?

They are the most populous

[Petrolheadia]

The China and India where people are abandoning rural life en masse?

They are the most populous

And the population is going urban.

It has been all throughout the world for most of history.

[The Parkus Empire]

They are the most populous

And the population is going urban.

It has been all throughout the world for most of history.

Right, enclosure helped

[Australian rePublic]

Where? In Singapore? All votes should be the same. In Australia? As more than 40% of the population live in Sydney and Melbourne, it's unfair that NSW and VIC votes would completely f%%k over the rest of the country if we didn't have the current system we have now. As it already stands, Sydney and Melbourne are the only places that are not ignored by the feds

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’ve never understood it. Why make some votes more valuable then other votes. Like I get not wanting people to just focus on cities but it just feels undemocractic to me

[Firaxin]

I’ve never understood it. Why make some votes more valuable then other votes. Like I get not wanting people to just focus on cities but it just feels undemocractic to me

I agree. It would be unfair to those living in the city for no other reason then "We don't want them to just focus on you."

[Ors Might]

I’ve never understood it. Why make some votes more valuable then other votes. Like I get not wanting people to just focus on cities but it just feels undemocractic to me

Do you agree with the idea that less powerful groups should have some protections in place to ensure that their needs are still met and their voices aren’t simply ignored? That’s essentially what bicameralism would do here. Democracy isn’t a virtue, it’s a system we use to promote our virtues and thus can be flawed and then corrected.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’ve never understood it. Why make some votes more valuable then other votes. Like I get not wanting people to just focus on cities but it just feels undemocractic to me

Do you agree with the idea that less powerful groups should have some protections in place to ensure that their needs are still met and their voices aren’t simply ignored? That’s essentially what bicameralism would do here. Democracy isn’t a virtue, it’s a system we use to promote our virtues and thus can be flawed and then corrected.

I suppose
But I feel like making some votes more powerful than others is just moving the problem. It’d be like if they passed a law that made cis het white votes half a vote

[Ors Might]

Do you agree with the idea that less powerful groups should have some protections in place to ensure that their needs are still met and their voices aren’t simply ignored? That’s essentially what bicameralism would do here. Democracy isn’t a virtue, it’s a system we use to promote our virtues and thus can be flawed and then corrected.

I suppose
But I feel like making some votes more powerful than others is just moving the problem. It’d be like if they passed a law that made cis het white votes half a vote

Not entirely invalid but here’s the problem with that analogy. In a lot of instances, those not part of that group have legal protections. The Civil Rights Act, for one. Protecting the minority from the larger majority isn’t new to our country.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I suppose
But I feel like making some votes more powerful than others is just moving the problem. It’d be like if they passed a law that made cis het white votes half a vote

Not entirely invalid but here’s the problem with that analogy. In a lot of instances, those not part of that group have legal protections. The Civil Rights Act, for one. Protecting the minority from the larger majority isn’t new to our country.

And I get that
What we have doesn’t feel like a protection though. I can get the point but it just makes it unfair a different way

[Sungai Pusat]

I'm personally in favour of one vote representing one person, as I believe that it's unfair to presume that people who are of a certain demographic will only ever vote a single way or even that the help that it would give them is something that would specifically help with their issues; Trump winning because of the electoral college is a good point, since many of the programmes that legitimately help rural communities are going to be shut down because Republicanism/rich bastard perspective. (spending cuts and all)

It would only give them more power to vote and sometimes that doesn't always translate to the best possible option for that group, but simply what they feel is able to make their lives better in a very general sense (worser still if you're a rural area since for many countries, they're declining) and as long as someone can bring that message to them, it's pretty easy to sway people to their side, regardless of actual effects regarding the policy.

More useful would be a government whose policy would be to recognise these problems and fracture and push towards a greater understanding of what the problems of all these marginalised groups are, what are the reasons for their decline or for their issues and what could work as a solution for them. This wouldn't be helped simply by having a party more represented in the government that was antithetical to the other party because rural votes counted more now.

(This whole thing is in a very American perspective because that's the one I'm more familiar with, for I am not actually Singaporean but rather an American expat at age 21. Yup.)

[Sungai Pusat]

Where? In Singapore? All votes should be the same. In Australia? As more than 40% of the population live in Sydney and Melbourne, it's unfair that NSW and VIC votes would completely f%%k over the rest of the country if we didn't have the current system we have now. As it already stands, Sydney and Melbourne are the only places that are not ignored by the feds

Following the logic of a lack of fairness due to under-representation, Singapore shouldn't even count all votes as the same because the religious and racial makeup is not homogenous and there could be some issues with those groups that are not getting due notice from a majority Chinese government.

The solution we have is to ensure that at least one constituency has a minority member of parliament. Probably not a perfect system, but it at least means that minority groups (racial ones at least) are still represented in our government anyways without the implication that their vote matters more than other groups. We also rotate between races when the time for a president comes up so that the face of the government, if not the official operator (which is the prime minister), is someone who represents all of us.

[Upper Oneland]

The trick is to divide the cities into small districts, each equal in population to one of the larger, rural districts. In this way, the people don't give up vote power for living in the cities, but the rural counties don't have their representation usurped by urban voters.

[Ors Might]

Not entirely invalid but here’s the problem with that analogy. In a lot of instances, those not part of that group have legal protections. The Civil Rights Act, for one. Protecting the minority from the larger majority isn’t new to our country.

And I get that
What we have doesn’t feel like a protection though. I can get the point but it just makes it unfair a different way

On the individual level, it likely is unfair. The problem is that we aren’t looking at it on that level. Think of it as one group vs another, with one having far more influence over the other in a one person one vote system. The group with less influence has issues that it feels aren’t being resolved due directly to a lack of influence. What’s the solution?