Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[Telconi]

And yet the Bronx, and NYC in general, has far more representation than those in Tioga County. A single lone voice would be meaningless.

Yes because they have more people therefore more representation. Their representative is not meaningless. If in committee many people spoke out against this hypothetical pipeline its unlikely it would make it to a floor vote.

But you need many people for that...

[San Lumen]

Yes because they have more people therefore more representation. Their representative is not meaningless. If in committee many people spoke out against this hypothetical pipeline its unlikely it would make it to a floor vote.

But you need many people for that...

Yes and you can also contact your representatives if you can't make to the state capital.

[Cranborne]

And yet the Bronx, and NYC in general, has far more representation than those in Tioga County. A single lone voice would be meaningless.

Yes because they have more people therefore more representation. Their representative is not meaningless. If in committee many people spoke out against this hypothetical pipeline its unlikely it would make it to a floor vote.

Hardly, because as long as it benefits NYC it would move ahead. The only hope they'd have is other representatives siding with them, but if said pipe line also favored those in places such as Long Island, Westchester, etc then they are out of luck. And indeed yes, the Bronx should have more representation than Tioga County - in body of the legislature. The other body should be tilted towards those in less populous areas to empower their voice. Are you against empowering minority population groups?

[Telconi]

But you need many people for that...

Yes and you can also contact your representatives if you can't make to the state capital.

Cool... my representative doesn't suddenly clone himself by fission if I write him a letter...

[Sungai Pusat]

Yes because they have more people therefore more representation. Their representative is not meaningless. If in committee many people spoke out against this hypothetical pipeline its unlikely it would make it to a floor vote.

But you need many people for that...

Would have to get a lot of people to care about it, yeah... too bad there's no possible way one could spread their message across and let it be known that this shit was happening. Or any way to phrase it such that people in big, liberal, eco conscious cities could care about pipelines... or even getting people just around the area mobilised to speak out against it.

It's certainly much harder to do so, though, that's something I would agree on.

[Lillorainen]

I wouldn't mind a 'one man one vote' rule being established in my home country. I live in Germany - another Federal Republic with a bicameral legislature, and it's obvious (and probably wanted) that the makeup of the Federal Council (Bundesrat), our state chamber, prefers smaller states over larger ones. As a result, a vote from someone living in the Saarland (that small state in the southwest which Germany "won" back from France in the 1950s) is worth eight times more than mine, as I happen to live in NRW (the largest state by population). Although this doesn't affect the value of my vote on a Federal level, where voting disctricts all have about the same number of people, I do think we should apply this to state level, too. (If a Saarländer is reading this - it's nothing personal against you ^^)
Speaking of the U.S., I can't see anything wrong with the 'one man one vote' thing. No one should be affected positively or negatively regarding the value of their vote just depending on whether they live in Manhattan or in Podunk Hollow. What's more fair than equal representation?

Why shouldn't the Saarlander take it personal? You actively support further silencing what voice they may have. You claim to support equal representation, yet would demolish the representation of various groups simply so that you may have more power.

Then I chose a bad wording, sorry. The status quo does not downright bother me, I just wouldn't oppose it being changed. I could also have used another state as an example here (... or just move out of NRW, a solid alternative).

[San Lumen]

Yes because they have more people therefore more representation. Their representative is not meaningless. If in committee many people spoke out against this hypothetical pipeline its unlikely it would make it to a floor vote.

Hardly, because as long as it benefits NYC it would move ahead. The only hope they'd have is other representatives siding with them, but if said pipe line also favored those in places such as Long Island, Westchester, etc then they are out of luck. And indeed yes, the Bronx should have more representation than Tioga County - in body of the legislature. The other body should be tilted towards those in less populous areas to empower their voice. Are you against empowering minority population groups?

But as I have said many times that was tried and ruled unconstitutional in the 1964. In the Reynolds V Sims case Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority said "“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Do you disagree with that statement?

[San Lumen]

Yes and you can also contact your representatives if you can't make to the state capital.

Cool... my representative doesn't suddenly clone himself by fission if I write him a letter...

And no one said that. You are aware that for its size California has one of the smallest legislatures per capita? San Francisco for example only has two representatives.

[Cranborne]

I wonder, San Lumen, should it have emerged that the populations of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa were in favor of the DAPL pipeline, should the objections of the Standing Rock reservation been tossed out of the window?

[Cranborne]

Hardly, because as long as it benefits NYC it would move ahead. The only hope they'd have is other representatives siding with them, but if said pipe line also favored those in places such as Long Island, Westchester, etc then they are out of luck. And indeed yes, the Bronx should have more representation than Tioga County - in body of the legislature. The other body should be tilted towards those in less populous areas to empower their voice. Are you against empowering minority population groups?

But as I have said many times that was tried and ruled unconstitutional in the 1964. In the Reynolds V Sims case Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority said "“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Do you disagree with that statement?

Yes.

[Van Riebeeck Land]

At the very least the Bronx should not be allowed to steam roll those in upstate New York against the wishes of the local population. For instance, say a new pipeline wished to be built that would benefit NYC but put upstate New York in greater peril of an oil spill or some other calamity.

Representatives in Upstate New York plan expand I-90, the plan will have no real benefit other than maybe slightly improving the economy, but it will at least make their constituents happy. Meanwhile I-95 through the Bronx is falling apart, and host to some awful traffic. The I-90 plan, though not important, will pull spending from improvements on I-95 in the Bronx, further degrading the quality of the road. With the over representation of Upstate New York, I-90 is upgraded while I-95 continues to fall apart. Why did the people Upstate get more a say while those in the Bronx got screwed?

[Telconi]

Cool... my representative doesn't suddenly clone himself by fission if I write him a letter...

And no one said that. You are aware that for its size California has one of the smallest legislatures per capita? San Francisco for example only has two representatives.

And my town has like two percent of one representstive... You are basically saying "If you people got enough support it would happen" he while simultaniously opposing the idea of us getting any more support. It's rediculous.

[San Lumen]

But as I have said many times that was tried and ruled unconstitutional in the 1964. In the Reynolds V Sims case Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority said "“Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Do you disagree with that statement?

Yes.

Why?

[Cranborne]

At the very least the Bronx should not be allowed to steam roll those in upstate New York against the wishes of the local population. For instance, say a new pipeline wished to be built that would benefit NYC but put upstate New York in greater peril of an oil spill or some other calamity.

Representatives in Upstate New York plan expand I-90, the plan will have no real benefit other than maybe slightly improving the economy, but it will at least make their constituents happy. Meanwhile I-95 through the Bronx is falling apart, and host to some awful traffic. The I-90 plan, though not important, will pull spending from improvements on I-95 in the Bronx, further degrading the quality of the road. With the over representation of Upstate New York, I-90 is upgraded while I-95 continues to fall apart. Why did the people Upstate get more a say while those in the Bronx got screwed?

That is where negotiations and political bartering come into play. I am not for rural tyranny, much in the same way I'm not for urban tyranny.

[Torrocca]

Or better yet, get more investments in their rural area for a safer, more secure way to become a little less poor.



You act like taking that huge fucking risk is gonna magically uplift millions out of poverty.



No, you're really not.

You'd rather leave millions of people impoverished, either in a rural area, "because they're dead men's towns," or in an urban area, "it's sooo easy to move away from those dead men's towns, poor person!" just to stroke your ego wherein this system magically works.

If they are too poor to move, they should get financial incentives to do so.

Or better yet, they shouldn't be in situations where millions of them are being left behind.

Either way, I'd rather spend once to get them out than keep spending.

That'd be a far fucking bigger investment than paying taxes to help them.

[Cranborne]

Yes.

Why?

Because legislators in the American represent people from geographic areas. Many State Senates were based upon county representation which is little different than you voting for a Senator or Representative. By the logic it proposes, America might as well switch to a proportional representation system that does away with any form of districts at all. If it wasn't for the protections afforded to the Federal Senate in the constitution, it would have likewise kicked the bucket within short order.

[San Lumen]

Representatives in Upstate New York plan expand I-90, the plan will have no real benefit other than maybe slightly improving the economy, but it will at least make their constituents happy. Meanwhile I-95 through the Bronx is falling apart, and host to some awful traffic. The I-90 plan, though not important, will pull spending from improvements on I-95 in the Bronx, further degrading the quality of the road. With the over representation of Upstate New York, I-90 is upgraded while I-95 continues to fall apart. Why did the people Upstate get more a say while those in the Bronx got screwed?

That is where negotiations and political bartering come into play. I am not for rural tyranny, much in the same way I'm not for urban tyranny.

Negotiation is part of how things are supposed to work. There is no urban tyranny. Many keep using that word but understand what the definition of tyranny is.

[San Lumen]

Why?

Because legislators in the American represent people from geographic areas. Many State Senates were based upon county representation which is little different than you voting for a Senator or Representative. By the logic it proposes, America might as well switch to a proportional representation system that does away with any form of districts at all. If it wasn't for the protections afforded to the Federal Senate in the constitution, it would have likewise kicked the bucket within short order.

Why should a county like Cook which is almost 50 percent of Illinois population get only two state senators? If you include the surrounding Chicagoland its almost 60 percent. Why should a minority of the population always be controlling the upper house?

[Telconi]

Because legislators in the American represent people from geographic areas. Many State Senates were based upon county representation which is little different than you voting for a Senator or Representative. By the logic it proposes, America might as well switch to a proportional representation system that does away with any form of districts at all. If it wasn't for the protections afforded to the Federal Senate in the constitution, it would have likewise kicked the bucket within short order.

Why should a county like Cook which is almost 50 percent of Illinois population get only two state senators? If you include the surrounding Chicagoland its almost 60 percent. Why should a minority of the population always be controlling the upper house?

Because then both sides get a chamber and people actually negotiate solutions.

[Van Riebeeck Land]

That is where negotiations and political bartering come into play. I am not for rural tyranny, much in the same way I'm not for urban tyranny.

Negotiation is part of how things are supposed to work. There is no urban tyranny. Many keep using that word but understand what the definition of tyranny is.

The only real "tyranny" there is in the current system, is when shady figures in the parties start to gerrymander like Pennsylvania (Fixed), Maryland (Some districts are literally connected by the length of a single road), Louisiana (I'm pretty sure LA-1 isn't even constitutionally legal), and Illinois.

[Thermodolia]

So basically, "fuck the poor, I got mine."



Hmm... I wonder why they'd need the tax money to begin with... not like they don't have the funds to make the move to a city life or something... hmmmm

House sales, savings, loans, etc.

You do know that a house in the suburbs costs about as much as the rent for a year in San Fran? And that’s just the rent. Not counting the taxes, food, bills, and everything else. Loans aren’t a good idea as that puts the poor in a deeper hole.

It seems to me that you really don’t know what it’s like to be poor at all or how expensive cities actually are

[Telconi]

That is where negotiations and political bartering come into play. I am not for rural tyranny, much in the same way I'm not for urban tyranny.

Negotiation is part of how things are supposed to work. There is no urban tyranny. Many keep using that word but understand what the definition of tyranny is.

But what incentive to the urban representatives have to negotiate? Also, disagreein with your opinion doesn't make someone wrong. We've been over this before.

[San Lumen]

Why should a county like Cook which is almost 50 percent of Illinois population get only two state senators? If you include the surrounding Chicagoland its almost 60 percent. Why should a minority of the population always be controlling the upper house?

Because then both sides get a chamber and people actually negotiate solutions.

There already is negotiation in the current setup contrary to what you think.

[Telconi]

Because then both sides get a chamber and people actually negotiate solutions.

There already is negotiation in the current setup contrary to what you think.

No there isnt, contrary to what you think.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because then both sides get a chamber and people actually negotiate solutions.

There already is negotiation in the current setup contrary to what you think.

A negotiation you think it's pointless considering your current position.