Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[San Lumen]

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, Louisiana (I'm pretty sure LA-1 isn't even constitutionally legal), and Illinois.

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it or what the intent is.

[Cranborne]

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.

Depends on where on lives. In areas of the world where there is one large city in a state or province, with therefore most of the political power, do you not think that said city pushes the remaining areas around? For instance, are you going to tell me that since 60% of Oregon's population is clustered around Portland that Portland does not set the agenda in Oregon and usually gets whatever it wants? And yes, we certainly do get what the definition is.

[San Lumen]

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.

Because those in the legislative chamber understand they are not the only people in the state.

[Thermodolia]

Lots of people buy them in this neck of woods.
It's a cheap way to get a lot of property for little money.


Save enough to get out.


"How to Invest In Your Future 102"

>Save enough

From their job they don't have?

Also taking out loans is investing in your future apparently, even though that the exact opposite of what a loan is

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The only real "tyranny" there is in the current system, is when shady figures in the parties start to gerrymander like Pennsylvania (Fixed), Maryland, Louisiana (I'm pretty sure LA-1 isn't even constitutionally legal), and Illinois.

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it or what the intent is.

If it was your side doing it and getting away with it you'd probably be singing a different tune, considering your desire to push people out of political discourse.

[Cranborne]

I have yet to have my question regarding the Standing Rock reservation be answered as well.

[San Lumen]

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

No there isnt, contrary to what you think.

That's because you looked at the proceedings of your legislature with blinders on and only saw what you wanted to see.

[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?

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

Freaking internet stopped & undid all my words.

Just like it is now, with urban areas have more votes but rural areas' individual votes worth more. For the specific voting I suggested, I'd like experts help make laws. Teachers help make education laws, & farmer/environmentalists/engineers making agricultural laws etc. Then, have the people affected by the change most, have their votes count more. I don't want people who know nothing about rural areas harm us. You wouldn't like me deciding what laws your area has to follow if I have no knowledge of your area, nor does it affect me greatly.

[San Lumen]

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it or what the intent is.

If it was your side doing it and getting away with it you'd probably be singing a different tune, considering your desire to push people out of political discourse.

Gerrymandering should be outlawed

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I thought these were dead men's towns. Who's gonna buy up a house in a dead man's town?

Lots of people buy them in this neck of woods.
It's a cheap way to get a lot of property for little money.

Implying people in impoverished areas have the means to adequately save up upwards of hundreds of thousands in a reasonable timespan.

Save enough to get out.

"How to Push Impoverished People Deeper Into Poverty 101"

"How to Invest In Your Future 102"

Loans are hardly a guarantee to invest in your future.

Loans are debt you accumulate and have to pay back sometime. They're not free money.

[Telconi]

No there isnt, contrary to what you think.

That's because you looked at the proceedings of your legislature with blinders on and only saw what you wanted to see.

Right, I'm the one wearing the blinders.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No there isnt, contrary to what you think.

That's because you looked at the proceedings of your legislature with blinders on and only saw what you wanted to see.

No, it's because in states with supermajorities there's no negotiation at all.

[Cranborne]

No there isnt, contrary to what you think.

That's because you looked at the proceedings of your legislature with blinders on and only saw what you wanted to see.

The irony.

[Van Riebeeck Land]

The only real "tyranny" there is in the current system, is when shady figures in the parties start to gerrymander like Pennsylvania (Fixed), Maryland, Louisiana (I'm pretty sure LA-1 isn't even constitutionally legal), and Illinois.

Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who does it or what the intent is.

Agreed, we need to start taking it seriously.

[Conserative Morality]

If it was your side doing it and getting away with it you'd probably be singing a different tune, considering your desire to push people out of political discourse.

You *do* realize that his (our) side *is* doing it and getting away with it?

Oh, what am I saying?

[Telconi]

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.

Because those in the legislative chamber understand they are not the only people in the state.

They don't care about me. Me being present doesn't make a single iota of difference.

[San Lumen]

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

Freaking internet stopped & undid all my words.

Just like it is now, with urban areas have more votes but rural areas' individual votes worth more. For the specific voting I suggested, I'd like experts help make laws. Teachers help make education laws, & farmer/environmentalists/engineers making agricultural laws etc. Then, have the people affected by the change most, have their votes count more. I don't want people who know nothing about rural areas harm us. You wouldn't like me deciding what laws your area has to follow if I have no knowledge of your area, nor does it affect me greatly.

How would their votes be worth more? You already have testimony from experts in committee and then there is debate on the floor.

Would the legislators from urban areas not be allowed to vote on a farm bill?

[Petrolheadia]

Lots of people buy them in this neck of woods.
It's a cheap way to get a lot of property for little money.


Save enough to get out.


"How to Invest In Your Future 102"

Loans are hardly a guarantee to invest in your future.

Loans are debt you accumulate and have to pay back sometime. They're not free money.

It is a mean of investing by taking money that you're planning to earn more than, plus interest.

Most businesses are started by taking loans.

[Thermodolia]

Loans are hardly a guarantee to invest in your future.

Loans are debt you accumulate and have to pay back sometime. They're not free money.

It is a mean of investing by taking money that you're planning to earn more than, plus interest.

Most businesses are started by taking loans.

Ya but most business aren’t started by poor people. And people aren’t business.

God you really sound like a right wing republican

[Petrolheadia]

It is a mean of investing by taking money that you're planning to earn more than, plus interest.

Most businesses are started by taking loans.

Ya but most business aren’t started by poor people. And people aren’t business.

God you really sound like a right wing republican

Sometimes you gotta think businesslike.

[Snowman]

Freaking internet stopped & undid all my words.

Just like it is now, with urban areas have more votes but rural areas' individual votes worth more. For the specific voting I suggested, I'd like experts help make laws. Teachers help make education laws, & farmer/environmentalists/engineers making agricultural laws etc. Then, have the people affected by the change most, have their votes count more. I don't want people who know nothing about rural areas harm us. You wouldn't like me deciding what laws your area has to follow if I have no knowledge of your area, nor does it affect me greatly.

How would their votes be worth more? You already have testimony from experts in committee and then there is debate on the floor.

Would the legislators from urban areas not be allowed to vote on a farm bill?

Well I mean I could give a number of idiotic laws where experts were obviously not consulted (like WOTUS saying puddles belong to the government & unrealistic changes requested in unrealistic time frames)

but to the main point, they should vote, the urban legislators, just that they would have less weight. Maybe till the rural legislators' votes were closer to the total value of the urban ones. It doesn't affect the people they represent as much. Coincides with the question you've dodged twice, reverse the situation, what if your area was decided by rural people? I can infer from your tone towards rural people, you would not like that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Loans are hardly a guarantee to invest in your future.

Loans are debt you accumulate and have to pay back sometime. They're not free money.

It is a mean of investing by taking money that you're planning to earn more than, plus interest.

Most businesses are started by taking loans.

Most small businesses are actually started by bootstrapping resources, not loans.

Also, yes, "earn more than". But the bank for a business also makes you put collateral before lending you anything. In the case of a personal loan, they won't even consider you with a bad credit record or no credit record, which many poor people have.

I don't think you understand how credit works.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Ya but most business aren’t started by poor people. And people aren’t business.

God you really sound like a right wing republican

Sometimes you gotta think businesslike.

You know, I've had my own company for 4 years, and I have over 30,000 dollars in credit lines, and I pretty much could go and take out loans with excellent interest rates because I can afford to.

I don't know who you've been talking to about credit and business, but I can tell you that you don't know as much as you think you do about business and personal/business finance if this is the way you think.

[Sungai Pusat]

It is a mean of investing by taking money that you're planning to earn more than, plus interest.

Most businesses are started by taking loans.

Most small businesses are actually started by bootstrapping resources, not loans.

Also, yes, "earn more than". But the bank for a business also makes you put collateral before lending you anything. In the case of a personal loan, they won't even consider you with a bad credit record or no credit record, which many poor people have.

I don't think you understand how credit works.

In other words, the world's more complicated than what we tend to assume it is. News at whenever.

Rural credit could absolutely be made easier to get, that would be one way to help kickstart more entrepreneurial individuals living in the are who don't have any other means to do so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If it was your side doing it and getting away with it you'd probably be singing a different tune, considering your desire to push people out of political discourse.

You *do* realize that his (our) side *is* doing it and getting away with it?

Oh, what am I saying?

I'm aware your side is doing plenty of things even when you seem to want to seem virtuous.

It's the only way you seem to want to win elections nowadays.