Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[Telconi]

But there aren't the same number of people in every county...

And your point is what? You should have more representation because you have less votes?

We give people more power all the time to balance out the excesses of the majority.

Not unfair undemocratic systems like a by county state senate or a electoral college for statewide elections

In one chamber, yes.

We literally tell the majority of voters and their elected representatives to fuck off, that is patently undemocratic.

[Doing it Rightland]

STV or alternative vote would be a big improvement. Giving individual rural voters more power than individual city voters simply because of their location within a state is an absurd notion, however, when considering any attempt to make democracy fairer and more equal.

First, absolutely. I'm impressed that people haven't forced this change through already. First Past the Post is dysfunctional.

In response to the main post, I think that the main issue is that governing necessities of urban and rural areas are so fundamentally different. Rural areas are going to need different regulations, different policies, and different styles of governance than cities. Why would a city be governed in a decentralized and less regulated manner, and why would you regulate the wilderness to no end? (This question is rhetorical, you wouldn't do either of those if you wanted a well-functioning society).

The problem is that straight up proportional representation puts rural America into the minority. The cities then (knowingly or not) implement their agendas, which generally come at the expense of said rural areas. Look no further than the money. Rural areas consistently receive little funding, and as such their education systems suffer, their healthcare and sanitation systems suffer, and the people there suffer.

As the saying goes: majority rule, minority right. If the minority is continually expended for majority gain, then these checks and weights are needed. Personally, I say we don't take the people who supply the raw materials to support this country be taken for granted.

[Ors Might]

Some people votes are worth more
That’s the moral

More like some groups need protection so that the majority doesn’t ignore their needs. This isn’t a new concept.

[Aclion]

Some even suggested statewide elections should be determined not by how many votes a candidate receives but how many counties they carry. How that is even remotely fair or democratic is beyond me.

The reasoning at the federal level is that the nation is a union of states that are equal members, and therefore should have equal say in the laws that affect all them. This is why in the senate votes among equally shared among the state representatives. and why each state has three seats on the electoral college in addition to those which are distributed according to population.

So while it might not seem fair or democratic for people in one place to have more "votes" than those in another it's also not fair for people living in one place to have complete say in the way people in another place live their lives, without any way for those people to alter this arrangement, especially when whose making all the rules neither understand nor care about the consequences their decisions may have on those living elsewhere.

In short giving the rural minority a say in the laws they are expected to follow is necessary to preserve the union, otherwise "the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice."

[Neutraligon]

Some people votes are worth more
That’s the moral

More like some groups need protection so that the majority doesn’t ignore their needs. This isn’t a new concept.

True, but at there are also times when the majority needs to be protected from the minority.

[Telconi]

More like some groups need protection so that the majority doesn’t ignore their needs. This isn’t a new concept.

True, but at there are also times when the majority needs to be protected from the minority.

And if you have two chambers in a legislature, one whoch favors rural people, and one which favors urban people, and require that both approve of proposed laws...

[Ors Might]

More like some groups need protection so that the majority doesn’t ignore their needs. This isn’t a new concept.

True, but at there are also times when the majority needs to be protected from the minority.

Also true. However, in a democracy, it’s typically the minority needing protections from the majority. The key is to make sure neither can completely dominate the other.

[US-SSR]

Too often an election is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I am not about to cast a vote, even a ranked choice one, for the second or third less bad of a larger number of evils. Go ahead, institute one of the many varieties of ranked choice, none of which completely address the problems inherent in popular elections. I will cast exactly one vote for any open seat.

As far as weighting rural votes, there should be popular election of the US President, i.e. no Electoral College or similar BS. Also all redistricting should be done by nonpartisan committee, challengeable only on the basis of discrimination against protected classes.

[Thermodolia]

Too often an election is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I am not about to cast a vote, even a ranked choice one, for the second or third less bad of a larger number of evils. Go ahead, institute one of the many varieties of ranked choice, none of which completely address the problems inherent in popular elections. I will cast exactly one vote for any open seat.

As far as weighting rural votes, there should be popular election of the US President, i.e. no Electoral College or similar BS. Also all redistricting should be done by nonpartisan committee, challengeable only on the basis of discrimination against protected classes.

Why don’t we just skip districts for the house and have PR voting. No districts, no Gerrymandering, no worries

[The Two Jerseys]

Too often an election is a choice of the lesser of two evils. I am not about to cast a vote, even a ranked choice one, for the second or third less bad of a larger number of evils. Go ahead, institute one of the many varieties of ranked choice, none of which completely address the problems inherent in popular elections. I will cast exactly one vote for any open seat.

As far as weighting rural votes, there should be popular election of the US President, i.e. no Electoral College or similar BS. Also all redistricting should be done by nonpartisan committee, challengeable only on the basis of discrimination against protected classes.

Why don’t we just skip districts for the house and have PR voting. No districts, no Gerrymandering, no worries

But "muh districts means that muh representative understands local issues better"!

Because that really applies in Maryland...

[Internationalist Bastard]

Some people votes are worth more
That’s the moral

More like some groups need protection so that the majority doesn’t ignore their needs. This isn’t a new concept.

I said nothing more than what I said
I for one am tired of the back and forth debate
The American democratic system is awful and people wanna change it
I’m just pointing out facts of our system that seem to feed the problem

[Ors Might]

More like some groups need protection so that the majority doesn’t ignore their needs. This isn’t a new concept.

I said nothing more than what I said
I for one am tired of the back and forth debate
The American democratic system is awful and people wanna change it
I’m just pointing out facts of our system that seem to feed the problem

If you’re tired of the debate, why participate in it?

[Dumb Ideologies]

There's a strong case for an element of weighted regional representation in the political system to ensure that the interests of the urban are not pursued at the expense of the rural.

One of the inherent problems of democracy is its "winner takes all" nature. With most voters being in urban areas, a strictly "one man, one vote" system based on equally sized constituencies will mean that the major parties will favour the interests of one over the other on a systemic level, resulting in these communities being starved of resources and struggling economically due to lack of investment in many areas, but particularly transport and housing.

There's a variety of ways such a weighting can be achieved. A unicameral legislature could factor these things into its constituency boundaries, a second chamber could be elected with weighted constituencies or indirectly elected by local government representatives and given either equal power to the "first" chamber or given review and veto powers, or a regional body could be part of a wider framework of consultative chambers in a more top-down system - perhaps with a requirement that legislation enacted by a life-president or monarch should get a certain amount of support from a range of bodies representing particular "slices" of the community.

There's a variety of ways to introduce such elements into a diverse range of systems, and doing so could - if properly implemented - help to ensure that the political program of the day can be made to genuinely operate in the national interest rather than simply that of the largest section.

[Napkiraly]

Cities should have their 20+ representatives. Trying to reduce that creates too much humbug. So instead we split the 5 rural reps until there are about 20. Now we have achieved equality.

[San Lumen]

Cities should have their 20+ representatives. Trying to reduce that creates too much humbug. So instead we split the 5 rural reps until there are about 20. Now we have achieved equality.

I dont understand your proposal

[San Lumen]

:D

And your point is what? You should have more representation because you have less votes?

Not unfair undemocratic systems like a by county state senate or a electoral college for statewide elections

In one chamber, yes.

We literally tell the majority of voters and their elected representatives to fuck off, that is patently undemocratic.

Why would you want a system where the minority is favored and can block things overwhelmingly supported by the majority and grind things to a halt. Delaware and Nevada are great examples. Illinois too 60 percent of the state population is in the Chicago metro area

[Ors Might]

:D

In one chamber, yes.

We literally tell the majority of voters and their elected representatives to fuck off, that is patently undemocratic.

Why would you want a system where the minority is favored and can block things overwhelmingly supported by the majority and grind things to a halt. Delaware and Nevada are great examples. Illinois too 60 percent of the state population is in the Chicago metro area

Because the minority shouldn’t have to rely on the whims of the majority to get what they need. Their needs don’t become less important just because they’re in the minority.

[San Lumen]

Why would you want a system where the minority is favored and can block things overwhelmingly supported by the majority and grind things to a halt. Delaware and Nevada are great examples. Illinois too 60 percent of the state population is in the Chicago metro area

Because the minority shouldn’t have to rely on the whims of the majority to get what they need. Their needs don’t become less important just because they’re in the minority.

And they dont have to. They have representatives like everyone else. They are not mute and unable to introduce amendments or legislation

[Telconi]

:D

In one chamber, yes.

We literally tell the majority of voters and their elected representatives to fuck off, that is patently undemocratic.

Why would you want a system where the minority is favored and can block things overwhelmingly supported by the majority and grind things to a halt. Delaware and Nevada are great examples. Illinois too 60 percent of the state population is in the Chicago metro area

Because I am of said minority.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I said nothing more than what I said
I for one am tired of the back and forth debate
The American democratic system is awful and people wanna change it
I’m just pointing out facts of our system that seem to feed the problem

If you’re tired of the debate, why participate in it?

Because the ultimate debate is pouting out that so many Americans are so disillusioned with politics that they don’t even want to put effort into defending their positions, as it will change nothing

[Telconi]

Because the minority shouldn’t have to rely on the whims of the majority to get what they need. Their needs don’t become less important just because they’re in the minority.

And they dont have to. They have representatives like everyone else. They are not mute and unable to introduce amendments or legislation

So?

[San Lumen]

Why would you want a system where the minority is favored and can block things overwhelmingly supported by the majority and grind things to a halt. Delaware and Nevada are great examples. Illinois too 60 percent of the state population is in the Chicago metro area

Because I am of said minority.

And do you not have a representative in Sacramento or Washington? Are they totally mute and unable to do anything and just sit in their office or at their desk in the chamber and twiddle their thumbs?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because I am of said minority.

And do you not have a representative in Sacramento or Washington? Are they totally mute and unable to do anything and just sit in their office or at their desk in the chamber and twiddle their thumbs?

If you had even the faintest idea of how polarized governments work you would know that yes the minority is effectively mute and unable to do anything.

[San Lumen]

And do you not have a representative in Sacramento or Washington? Are they totally mute and unable to do anything and just sit in their office or at their desk in the chamber and twiddle their thumbs?

If you had even the faintest idea of how polarized governments work you would know that yes the minority is effectively mute and unable to do anything.

No they aren't. I think what is really the argument here is that my side doenst win therefore things ought to be rigged in my favor. How dare someone in King County vote or have their fair share of representation?

[Telconi]

Because I am of said minority.

And do you not have a representative in Sacramento or Washington? Are they totally mute and unable to do anything and just sit in their office or at their desk in the chamber and twiddle their thumbs?

Given that Democrats hold a supermajority in the state legislature, yes, that's basically what he's capable of.