Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[San Lumen]

Why shouldn't there be a Department of Agriculture? Do you know why we have state and a federal department? Its to prevent another Dust Bowl.

It has nothing to do with it being a Department of Agriculture, it has to do with it being *California's* department of Agriculture.

What in the world is that supposed to mean?

[Telconi]

It has nothing to do with it being a Department of Agriculture, it has to do with it being *California's* department of Agriculture.

What in the world is that supposed to mean?

That my issue with such a department is not it's purpose, but that it is an organ of the California government.

[Ghost Land]

Do you only dislike anti-semites because they have different opinions than you?

Being denied integral rights is oppressive. Yes, almost as simply as the concept that I am aware of election results. Sure it does, oppressive governments deserve to be disrupted.

That is not even remotely the same thing.

You are not oppressed like someone who came from a actual dictatorship. There is absolutely no reason to disrupt the government. Put up better candidates instead of a perennial candidate for governor whose never even been elected to the school board

There's no rule that says dictatorships are always oppressive, either, and there's no rule that says democracies, even the representative "democracy" you favour and that is so popular across the world right now, can't be corrupt or oppressive either.

[Thermodolia]

No it really isn't. The state legislature has people from all over the state. I am not going to explain to you again how government works.

I will give you a perfect example one more time. Lets say two men get married in San Francisco they then move to a very red county where the county government has said they are not recognized as a couple nor is their adopted children recognized as their son or daughter. Do you see how this wouldn't work? Granted there are some bigger issues I could use but I couldn't think of another at the moment

Thank Christ, ham fisted civics lessons are my least favorite thing to read.

I don't see how it wouldn't work. Their marriage would be annulled, and their child placed in foster care.

Well the child depends because in most western places single people are allowed to adopt.

[Thermodolia]

That it enables the state to excersize legal power, and that this situation is unfortunate.

Why shouldn't there be a Department of Agriculture? Do you know why we have state and a federal department? Its to prevent another Dust Bowl.

Actually it’s not. The USDA was formed to manage agriculture production a full 40 years before the dust bowl happened. Some say that the USDA’s practices helped to extend the dust bowl.

[San Lumen]

Thank Christ, ham fisted civics lessons are my least favorite thing to read.

I don't see how it wouldn't work. Their marriage would be annulled, and their child placed in foster care.

Well the child depends because in most western places single people are allowed to adopt.

And what if that county doesn’t want lgbt people adopting at all ?

Why shouldn't there be a Department of Agriculture? Do you know why we have state and a federal department? Its to prevent another Dust Bowl.

Actually it’s not. The USDA was formed to manage agriculture production a full 40 years before the dust bowl happened. Some say that the USDA’s practices helped to extend the dust bowl.

How? The dust bowl happened because there was little to no regulation of farming. Unsustainable and lazy practices led to a environmental catastrophe

[Snowman]

We presently do have a patchwork of laws on things... You say it isn't feasible, and yet it is the current system.

On some issues yes because their is no state or federal law on them.

Farming is another thing that isn't a local issue.

Farming is a local issue for voters, & can be regulated at the federal level, but it shouldn't be voted on by people who know nothing about it & it doesn't directly affect them. Funnily enough the USDA veterniary labs work in my state's ag college town. States are their own governments as well, & I fully support states deciding how they want to do things. Many things are local issues, & I don't want people in a city hundreds of miles away deciding on something that doesn't affect them. For president, maybe a popular vote is cool, maybe not. But replacing the electoral system is a long-ways off. More important matters to put your back behind

[San Lumen]

On some issues yes because their is no state or federal law on them.

Farming is another thing that isn't a local issue.

Farming is a local issue for voters, & can be regulated at the federal level, but it shouldn't be voted on by people who know nothing about it & it doesn't directly affect them. Funnily enough the USDA veterniary labs work in my state's ag college town. States are their own governments as well, & I fully support states deciding how they want to do things. Many things are local issues, & I don't want people in a city hundreds of miles away deciding on something that doesn't affect them. For president, maybe a popular vote is cool, maybe not. But replacing the electoral system is a long-ways off. More important matters to put your back behind

Legislators from non rural counties shouldn’t be able to vote on agriculture issues?
If there is a vote in agriculture commissioner which only some states vote for some counties should not be able to vote on it? That would not be fair or democratic and probably unconstitutional

The AG commissioner in my state isn’t elected it’s appointed by governor subject to confirmation by the State Senate. The commissioner is typically from a rural county

[Snowman]

Farming is a local issue for voters, & can be regulated at the federal level, but it shouldn't be voted on by people who know nothing about it & it doesn't directly affect them. Funnily enough the USDA veterniary labs work in my state's ag college town. States are their own governments as well, & I fully support states deciding how they want to do things. Many things are local issues, & I don't want people in a city hundreds of miles away deciding on something that doesn't affect them. For president, maybe a popular vote is cool, maybe not. But replacing the electoral system is a long-ways off. More important matters to put your back behind

Legislators from non rural counties shouldn’t be able to vote on agriculture issues?
If there is a vote in agriculture commissioner which only some states vote for some counties should not be able to vote on it? That would not be fair or democratic and probably unconstitutional

The AG commissioner in my state isn’t elected it’s appointed by governor subject to confirmation by the State Senate. The commissioner is typically from a rural county

As rural areas typically are where farmers & ranchers are, makes sense to me.

You also are putting words in my mouth. If it affects the county, the county should vote. State, the state. America, America. It's just Iowa needs & has & is doing it's own ag laws & policy. It's more than what the federal government is doing for water quality for action plans, even if we are lacking funding. Typically Iowa ag shouldnt be dictated by cities in New York, Texas, & California is what I'm saying

[San Lumen]

Legislators from non rural counties shouldn’t be able to vote on agriculture issues?
If there is a vote in agriculture commissioner which only some states vote for some counties should not be able to vote on it? That would not be fair or democratic and probably unconstitutional

The AG commissioner in my state isn’t elected it’s appointed by governor subject to confirmation by the State Senate. The commissioner is typically from a rural county

As rural areas typically are where farmers & ranchers are, makes sense to me.

You also are putting words in my mouth. If it affects the county, the county should vote. State, the state. America, America. It's just Iowa needs & has & is doing it's own ag laws & policy. It's more than what the federal government is doing for water quality for action plans, even if we are lacking funding. Typically Iowa ag shouldnt be dictated by cities in New York, Texas, & California is what I'm saying

Except that’s not a legislature works. By your logic why should rural legislators get to vote on urban affairs?

You are aware that the members of the agriculture committee tend to come from rural district?

[Thermodolia]

Well the child depends because in most western places single people are allowed to adopt.

And what if that county doesn’t want lgbt people adopting at all ?

I’m not here to argue about that.

Anyway you benefit from decentralization. Because if the US was highly centralized gun control laws would be non-existant. As would gay rights.

Actually it’s not. The USDA was formed to manage agriculture production a full 40 years before the dust bowl happened. Some say that the USDA’s practices helped to extend the dust bowl.

How? The dust bowl happened because there was little to no regulation of farming. Unsustainable and lazy practices led to a environmental catastrophe

You claimed the USDA came about to prevent another dust bowl. The fact that they where formed 40 fucking years proves that at the very minimum they did jackshit

[Snowman]

As rural areas typically are where farmers & ranchers are, makes sense to me.

You also are putting words in my mouth. If it affects the county, the county should vote. State, the state. America, America. It's just Iowa needs & has & is doing it's own ag laws & policy. It's more than what the federal government is doing for water quality for action plans, even if we are lacking funding. Typically Iowa ag shouldnt be dictated by cities in New York, Texas, & California is what I'm saying

Except that’s not a legislature works. By your logic why should rural legislators get to vote on urban affairs?

You are aware that the members of the agriculture committee tend to come from rural district?

To the second point, I thought my quote comment answered that, yes, that makes sense. I did not know for a fact, but would have placed good money on it.

To the first, rural voters can vote if it affects them, like if it's a statewide thing, or national thing. I'm actually pretty sure legislation works by the legislature, voted in by the people they represent, pass laws for the people they represent. I'm merely saying, democracy has its downsides, every idiot can vote, but a law for Iowan ag should be made by USDA or FDA or EPA so on so forth, or by Iowans. Rural Iowa shouldn't let federal level dictate state-level ag. I'm saying legislation by the area

[Thermodolia]

As rural areas typically are where farmers & ranchers are, makes sense to me.

You also are putting words in my mouth. If it affects the county, the county should vote. State, the state. America, America. It's just Iowa needs & has & is doing it's own ag laws & policy. It's more than what the federal government is doing for water quality for action plans, even if we are lacking funding. Typically Iowa ag shouldnt be dictated by cities in New York, Texas, & California is what I'm saying

Except that’s not a legislature works. By your logic why should rural legislators get to vote on urban affairs?

They shouldn’t. Rural representatives from bumfuck NB shouldn’t rule on what NYC should do.

Federalism works for the US. Otherwise NYC would be a mess.

[Thermodolia]

Except that’s not a legislature works. By your logic why should rural legislators get to vote on urban affairs?

You are aware that the members of the agriculture committee tend to come from rural district?

To the second point, I thought my quote comment answered that, yes, that makes sense. I did not know for a fact, but would have placed good money on it.

To the first, rural voters can vote if it affects them, like if it's a statewide thing, or national thing. I'm actually pretty sure legislation works by the legislature, voted in by the people they represent, pass laws for the people they represent. I'm merely saying, democracy has its downsides, every idiot can vote, but a law for Iowan ag should be made by USDA or FDA or EPA so on so forth, or by Iowans. Rural Iowa shouldn't let federal level dictate state-level ag. I'm saying legislation by the area

Pretty much this. The issues that the federal government deals with are national issues like foreign affairs, border security and the like. The state deals with issues that concern the state and require and more local say. Like ag, Education, and Business regulation. The county and municipalities deal with very local issues like education, zoning laws, and parks and rec

[San Lumen]

Except that’s not a legislature works. By your logic why should rural legislators get to vote on urban affairs?

They shouldn’t. Rural representatives from bumfuck NB shouldn’t rule on what NYC should do.

Federalism works for the US. Otherwise NYC would be a mess.

In other words Kansas City or Oklahoma City should get whatever they want or need without interference from rural lawmakers with money grown on trees?

In all seriousness how how that even work?

[Doing it Rightland]

Hypothetical Breakdown:

County Laws
For things that are going to be heavily dependent on the region itself. For example, NYC could pass stricter gun legislation to reduce crime, and somewhere like Syracuse or Buffalo can have more relaxed policies since they're rural communities. This could also extend to agricultural regulations; why should NYC bother wasting its time discussing agricultural regulations when they can merely let the rural communities pass their own.

State Laws
For the coordination of the counties. This would primarily be tax distribution and attempting to standardize regulations in like areas. For example, the state of Texas could form an agricultural commission, which would cooperate with rural counties to make their regulations more uniform. This limits undue influence on cities that don't need these policies (who can use their time to tackle their own issues) and makes cooperation within the states smoother.

National Laws
For things that are going to more universally affect the entire nation, whether it be foreign policy, civil rights protections (like gay marriage). These things are going to be important to everyone, and not disproportionately impacting rural or urban areas.

I think this would be pretty functional. The state ensures some uniformity across like counties. The counties can more effectively tackle their own issues. And the national government can devote more time to other matters.

[Northern Davincia]

Daily reminder that the government shouldn't recognize any marriage, gay or straight.

Answer is simple, decentralize federal and state authority into local governments. Less overall ostracization, larger fulfillment in participating in the political process due to more immediate returns, and less obsession with swing states or counties.

If the state legislature barely mattered, then who would care who has a larger ratio of representation when compared to others?

The US tried a more decentralized "government" It failed, hence why we got the Constitution.

We should bring back the Articles of Confederation.

[The Lone Alliance]

What should or shouldn't be is a matter of opinion.

But do you get that you can't have a patchwork of laws on certain things? Its simply not feasible. Some things are not local issues,

Farming is another thing that isn;t local. Its a state issue

The very fact that Law's aren't uniform across the land is part of the freedom of the US.

That's why so many people are moving out of California, New York, and New Jersey to states with less restrictive laws.

[Doing it Rightland]

Daily reminder that the government shouldn't recognize any marriage, gay or straight.

Why not?

We should bring back the Articles of Confederation.

Bad idea. They phased those out because the states basically ignored the central government. States didn't pay taxes, didn't support the military, and the central government under the AoC couldn't effectively maintain control (ex. Shay's Rebellion). Often not enough delegates even showed up to actually have debates or make laws. Heck, when the Treaty of Paris (the one that ended the Revolutionary War) was initially brought to the Confederation Congress for ratification, they were two delegates short of the amount needed to ratify the treaty. The federal government has to be strong enough to keep a functioning state together, and the AoC simply failed to do that.

[Telconi]

Daily reminder that the government shouldn't recognize any marriage, gay or straight.

Why not?

We should bring back the Articles of Confederation.

Bad idea. They phased those out because the states basically ignored the central government. States didn't pay taxes, didn't support the military, and the central government under the AoC couldn't effectively maintain control (ex. Shay's Rebellion). Often not enough delegates even showed up to actually have debates or make laws. Heck, when the Treaty of Paris (the one that ended the Revolutionary War) was initially brought to the Confederation Congress for ratification, they were two delegates short of the amount needed to ratify the treaty. The federal government has to be strong enough to keep a functioning state together, and the AoC simply failed to do that.

What if we don't want to keep a functioning state together.

[San Lumen]

Hypothetical Breakdown:

County Laws
For things that are going to be heavily dependent on the region itself. For example, NYC could pass stricter gun legislation to reduce crime, and somewhere like Syracuse or Buffalo can have more relaxed policies since they're rural communities. This could also extend to agricultural regulations; why should NYC bother wasting its time discussing agricultural regulations when they can merely let the rural communities pass their own.

State Laws
For the coordination of the counties. This would primarily be tax distribution and attempting to standardize regulations in like areas. For example, the state of Texas could form an agricultural commission, which would cooperate with rural counties to make their regulations more uniform. This limits undue influence on cities that don't need these policies (who can use their time to tackle their own issues) and makes cooperation within the states smoother.

National Laws
For things that are going to more universally affect the entire nation, whether it be foreign policy, civil rights protections (like gay marriage). These things are going to be important to everyone, and not disproportionately impacting rural or urban areas.

I think this would be pretty functional. The state ensures some uniformity across like counties. The counties can more effectively tackle their own issues. And the national government can devote more time to other matters.

There are flaws with your plan. Let’s say counties use a dangerous pesticide that gets into groundwater or or the river which carries it downstream. That is why we have a agriculture department and why rural counties have their Own government and representatives in the state legislature and why the commissioner comes from a rural area typically

[Thermodolia]

Hypothetical Breakdown:

County Laws
For things that are going to be heavily dependent on the region itself. For example, NYC could pass stricter gun legislation to reduce crime, and somewhere like Syracuse or Buffalo can have more relaxed policies since they're rural communities. This could also extend to agricultural regulations; why should NYC bother wasting its time discussing agricultural regulations when they can merely let the rural communities pass their own.

State Laws
For the coordination of the counties. This would primarily be tax distribution and attempting to standardize regulations in like areas. For example, the state of Texas could form an agricultural commission, which would cooperate with rural counties to make their regulations more uniform. This limits undue influence on cities that don't need these policies (who can use their time to tackle their own issues) and makes cooperation within the states smoother.

National Laws
For things that are going to more universally affect the entire nation, whether it be foreign policy, civil rights protections (like gay marriage). These things are going to be important to everyone, and not disproportionately impacting rural or urban areas.

I think this would be pretty functional. The state ensures some uniformity across like counties. The counties can more effectively tackle their own issues. And the national government can devote more time to other matters.

There are flaws with your plan. Let’s say counties use a dangerous pesticide that gets into groundwater or or the river which carries it downstream. That is why we have a agriculture department and why rural counties have their Own government and representatives in the state legislature and why the commissioner comes from a rural area typically

And what happens when the state legislature doesn’t give a fuck because they’ve been bought by corporations?

[Northern Davincia]

Daily reminder that the government shouldn't recognize any marriage, gay or straight.

Why not?

Because it's pointless.

[Doing it Rightland]

There are flaws with your plan. Let’s say counties use a dangerous pesticide that gets into groundwater or or the river which carries it downstream. That is why we have a agriculture department and why rural counties have their Own government and representatives in the state legislature and why the commissioner comes from a rural area typically

First, there are flaws with every plan. Yes, mine is no exception. But, your proposed situation: If the pesticide gets into the groundwater, it hurts the county itself, thus encouraging the county not to do that. If it gets carried downstream, then I think that the downstream counties have a right to dispute the use, using the state government as an arbiter of sorts. Then, the state government decides that those pesticides aren't cool, and the county changes accordingly. If the state somehow decides that poisoning people is okay, then they elevate it to the national level for arbitration. I think my system is potentially better because so long as the county isn't causing any problems, the state doesn't have to intervene at all. As a result, it can develop in a more flexible manner and adapt to local conditions, and the state has more time to attend to other issues.

This may start to become apparent, but I'm not really a huge fan for current state governments on their own. States are nice to divide things up into neat-ish districts, which makes tax distribution and court systems more efficient. But other than that, I don't really see a huge purpose for them. State laws are weird in the sense that they apply to both rural and urban areas, but only in part of the country. Personally I think it makes more of a mess than necessary.

And what happens when the state legislature doesn’t give a fuck because they’ve been bought by corporations?

Language, but yeah that causes problems.

Because it's pointless.

I still think it's useful for stuff like taxes (some of the deductions are different) and legal situations, especially when there's a custody situation involved. In those cases, I think it's at least somewhat useful for the government to know about the marriage. Perhaps they could just be a "rubber stamp" of sorts, not actually restricting marriages in any way and instead just acknowledging their presence in the event that it becomes important later for legal reasons?

[San Lumen]

There are flaws with your plan. Let’s say counties use a dangerous pesticide that gets into groundwater or or the river which carries it downstream. That is why we have a agriculture department and why rural counties have their Own government and representatives in the state legislature and why the commissioner comes from a rural area typically

First, there are flaws with every plan. Yes, mine is no exception. But, your proposed situation: If the pesticide gets into the groundwater, it hurts the county itself, thus encouraging the county not to do that. If it gets carried downstream, then I think that the downstream counties have a right to dispute the use, using the state government as an arbiter of sorts. Then, the state government decides that those pesticides aren't cool, and the county changes accordingly. If the state somehow decides that poisoning people is okay, then they elevate it to the national level for arbitration. I think my system is potentially better because so long as the county isn't causing any problems, the state doesn't have to intervene at all. As a result, it can develop in a more flexible manner and adapt to local conditions, and the state has more time to attend to other issues.

This may start to become apparent, but I'm not really a huge fan for current state governments on their own. States are nice to divide things up into neat-ish districts, which makes tax distribution and court systems more efficient. But other than that, I don't really see a huge purpose for them. State laws are weird in the sense that they apply to both rural and urban areas, but only in part of the country. Personally I think it makes more of a mess than necessary.

And what happens when the state legislature doesn’t give a fuck because they’ve been bought by corporations?

Language, but yeah that causes problems.

Because it's pointless.

I still think it's useful for stuff like taxes (some of the deductions are different) and legal situations, especially when there's a custody situation involved. In those cases, I think it's at least somewhat useful for the government to know about the marriage. Perhaps they could just be a "rubber stamp" of sorts, not actually restricting marriages in any way and instead just acknowledging their presence in the event that it becomes important later for legal reasons?

I don’t understand why we have to make things so complicated. What’s wrong with the current setup when the chair of the agriculture department/commission is from a rural county and the agriculture committee is the same way.