Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Petrolheadia]

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?

Continue to keep making decisions that would benefit more people?

[San Lumen]

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.

Not a terrible idea except districts must be roughly equal in population. That is part of what the Sims decision was about. Therefore under your solution you go right back to the same problem as pre Reynolds v sims

[United Muscovite Nations]

Except they don't.

How is it not equal and how does the state government not represent you? Do you not have a state assemblymember or state senator?

If the government were representing us, they wouldn't have voted to subsidize the factory to move to an urban area.

[San Lumen]

How is it not equal and how does the state government not represent you? Do you not have a state assemblymember or state senator?

If the government were representing us, they wouldn't have voted to subsidize the factory to move to an urban area.

The government does not only represent you. It represents the urban areas of your state too. Perhaps the factory needed more space, wanted a more diverse workforce or something like that. There are likely several factors.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If the government were representing us, they wouldn't have voted to subsidize the factory to move to an urban area.

The government does not only represent you. It represents the urban areas of your state too. Perhaps the factory needed more space,

Urban areas have more space than total ones? What?

wanted a more diverse workforce or something like that. There are likely several factors.

What do you mean a more diverse workforce?

[Telconi]

If the government were representing us, they wouldn't have voted to subsidize the factory to move to an urban area.

The government does not only represent you. It represents the urban areas of your state too. Perhaps the factory needed more space, wanted a more diverse workforce or something like that. There are likely several factors.

You do realize that it has to pick one right?

[United Muscovite Nations]

If the government were representing us, they wouldn't have voted to subsidize the factory to move to an urban area.

The government does not only represent you. It represents the urban areas of your state too. Perhaps the factory needed more space, wanted a more diverse workforce or something like that. There are likely several factors.

So because of that, our town should have been destroyed?

[San Lumen]

The government does not only represent you. It represents the urban areas of your state too. Perhaps the factory needed more space, wanted a more diverse workforce or something like that. There are likely several factors.

So because of that, our town should have been destroyed?

No one said that. The factory has a right to move if it so chooses and perhaps they did not have the money so the government helped them out. Move to a city then.

[Sungai Pusat]

The government does not only represent you. It represents the urban areas of your state too. Perhaps the factory needed more space,

Urban areas have more space than total ones? What?

wanted a more diverse workforce or something like that. There are likely several factors.

What do you mean a more diverse workforce?

It's a badly made point, I think he just meant that cities tend to have more facilities/infrastructure to accomodate factories.

Not a point I totally agree with (roads are more congested for cities, but it is where most of the ports are... and yes the space argument's dumb), but there you go.

If nothing else, being closer to a city definitely makes it more feasible for more people to commute there, so that makes it more feasible for the factory to expand.

[Cranborne]

To a certain extent, yes. The current system for the federal level is most appropriate. The more populous states get their representation in the House of Representatives whilst the smaller states get their representation in the Senate. This is a good division and has served the American nation well since 1789. Not to mention, that there would be no effective way of changing the current system barring outright tyranny.

[The Yeomanry]

No. There should be no votes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So because of that, our town should have been destroyed?

No one said that. The factory has a right to move if it so chooses and perhaps they did not have the money so the government helped them out. Move to a city then.

It was a government owned factory, they absolutely didn't have to move it.

[Snowman]

I remember certain people from this thread trashing rural areas before. Obviously I'm biased as I live in one. I have seen the negative effects of the masses (from urban areas, why they're urban) voting for things affecting rural areas. Just like how each state (their own government entity) is allowed to vote for presidents instead of direct democracy with more weight per person if they're smaller, I believe we can put it into the state level. I would like for a system where rural votes count more for when decisions affecting rural areas greatly are to be made. However, if asked for a straight solution, I don't see why areas would be excluded. It is a balance, with urban areas always majority because they have more people, but rural people votes being worth more. What if, by an impossible way, rural areas were actually the majority. Would you be 100% okay with direct democracy then? Would you be okay with someone who has never set foot in a large city dictating your life?

[Sungai Pusat]

So because of that, our town should have been destroyed?

No one said that. The factory has a right to move if it so chooses and perhaps they did not have the money so the government helped them out. Move to a city then.

Basically move to a city or be in poverty/unemployment. Good choices there.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Also, San Lumen, if we allowed the urban areas to decide things like agricultural policy, we would get foolish anti-GMO and anti-pesticide policies which are popular among the liberal urban population.

[San Lumen]

I remember certain people from this thread trashing rural areas before. Obviously I'm biased as I live in one. I have seen the negative effects of the masses (from urban areas, why they're urban) voting for things affecting rural areas. Just like how each state (their own government entity) is allowed to vote for presidents instead of direct democracy with more weight per person if they're smaller, I believe we can put it into the state level. I would like for a system where rural votes count more for when decisions affecting rural areas greatly are to be made. However, if asked for a straight solution, I don't see why areas would be excluded. It is a balance, with urban areas always majority because they have more people, but rural people votes being worth more. What if, by an impossible way, rural areas were actually the majority. Would you be 100% okay with direct democracy then? Would you be okay with someone who has never set foot in a large city dictating your life?

How would this system of rural votes counting more for certain things work?

[Sungai Pusat]

I remember certain people from this thread trashing rural areas before. Obviously I'm biased as I live in one. I have seen the negative effects of the masses (from urban areas, why they're urban) voting for things affecting rural areas. Just like how each state (their own government entity) is allowed to vote for presidents instead of direct democracy with more weight per person if they're smaller, I believe we can put it into the state level. I would like for a system where rural votes count more for when decisions affecting rural areas greatly are to be made. However, if asked for a straight solution, I don't see why areas would be excluded. It is a balance, with urban areas always majority because they have more people, but rural people votes being worth more. What if, by an impossible way, rural areas were actually the majority. Would you be 100% okay with direct democracy then? Would you be okay with someone who has never set foot in a large city dictating your life?

I would argue that there have to be different levels of government that addresses those issues; the national government isn't in charge of the individual businesses and where they are at, nor is the state exactly (though it's closer than the national level)

It might still not help anyways, people don't always vote with precision with regards to what they think is best for them with the policies, but rather with the feeling of whether that person would help them the most: It would only really help if the matter being voted on directly affected them (i.e. the point about the factory and it's relocation being voted on; that's a situation where votes being heavily weighted by this affected is absolutely something I would support)

[Van Riebeeck Land]

There's a tyranny of the majority problem yet also a fairness problem. I'm not sure what my opinion would be.

[Sungai Pusat]

Also, San Lumen, if we allowed the urban areas to decide things like agricultural policy, we would get foolish anti-GMO and anti-pesticide policies which are popular among the liberal urban population.

I don't think that's strictly something that only exists in the urban areas; I can imagine someone operating a farm of their own having reservations about pesticides and GMO crops, especially since many farms are still family-owned.

It's also not like people don't have a good reason to at least distrust Monsanto. Nor are negative attitudes towards the 'effects' of GMO crops that delineated along party lines.

[Torrocca]

So because of that, our town should have been destroyed?

No one said that. The factory has a right to move if it so chooses and perhaps they did not have the money so the government helped them out. Move to a city then.

I like how you're okay with rural people being left in poverty without any line of work because the factories have a "right to move".

Also, do you understand how much it costs to move?

[Petrolheadia]

I remember certain people from this thread trashing rural areas before. Obviously I'm biased as I live in one. I have seen the negative effects of the masses (from urban areas, why they're urban) voting for things affecting rural areas. Just like how each state (their own government entity) is allowed to vote for presidents instead of direct democracy with more weight per person if they're smaller, I believe we can put it into the state level. I would like for a system where rural votes count more for when decisions affecting rural areas greatly are to be made. However, if asked for a straight solution, I don't see why areas would be excluded. It is a balance, with urban areas always majority because they have more people, but rural people votes being worth more. What if, by an impossible way, rural areas were actually the majority. Would you be 100% okay with direct democracy then? Would you be okay with someone who has never set foot in a large city dictating your life?

Well, tough luck, that's how the country would look.

Also, policies benefiting the majority group would likely have a positive influence on the biggest economic sector, so such a situation would likely make the economy grow quicker tham the opposite.

[Bienenhalde]

Also, San Lumen, if we allowed the urban areas to decide things like agricultural policy, we would get foolish anti-GMO and anti-pesticide policies which are popular among the liberal urban population.

Restrictions or bans on GMOs or pesticides might hurt agribusiness corporations and those who own large mechanized farms, but I am not sure it would be so bad for small family farms. While farming without GMOs and pesticides would be more labor intensive and less efficient, it would actually create more agriculture jobs because farms would need to hire more people to do all of the work.

[Petrolheadia]

No one said that. The factory has a right to move if it so chooses and perhaps they did not have the money so the government helped them out. Move to a city then.

I like how you're okay with rural people being left in poverty without any line of work because the factories have a "right to move".

Also, do you understand how much it costs to move?

Well, I don't wanna be stuck paying taxes for some holdouters in a non-economically-feasible area.

[Cranborne]

So because of that, our town should have been destroyed?

No one said that. The factory has a right to move if it so chooses

Hello Mr. Reagan.

[Petrolheadia]

Also, San Lumen, if we allowed the urban areas to decide things like agricultural policy, we would get foolish anti-GMO and anti-pesticide policies which are popular among the liberal urban population.

Restrictions or bans on GMOs or pesticides might hurt agribusiness corporations and those who own large mechanized farms, but I am not sure it would be so bad for small family farms. While farming without GMOs and pesticides would be more labor intensive and less efficient, it would actually create more agriculture jobs because farms would need to hire more people to do all of the work.

I'm pretty sure these extra guys would be better served by making those pesticides than doing pointless stuff on farms.