Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[Doing it Rightland]

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.

I don't think it would be more complicated. Of anything, it would be simpler. With our current setup, yes the chair of the department would be from a rural county, but at the same time the department's actions would be subject to urban legislators. Their time is better spent with stuff like zoning and public transit development. In my system, the urban and rural legislators would focus more on their own constituencies and problems and less on the other's, thus increasing the average knowledge of the problem being tackled.

[Holy Tedalonia]

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.


Language, but yeah that causes problems.


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.

Because State wide decision making on something as important, yet as simplistic as farming can lead to arbitrary management, potentially causing famine.

[San Lumen]

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.

I don't think it would be more complicated. Of anything, it would be simpler. With our current setup, yes the chair of the department would be from a rural county, but at the same time the department's actions would be subject to urban legislators. Their time is better spent with stuff like zoning and public transit development. In my system, the urban and rural legislators would focus more on their own constituencies and problems and less on the other's, thus increasing the average knowledge of the problem being tackled.

I would also expect the staff to be familiar with farming as well so therefore why overly complicate things. Plus how is what you propose any different from what we have now

[Holy Tedalonia]

I don't think it would be more complicated. Of anything, it would be simpler. With our current setup, yes the chair of the department would be from a rural county, but at the same time the department's actions would be subject to urban legislators. Their time is better spent with stuff like zoning and public transit development. In my system, the urban and rural legislators would focus more on their own constituencies and problems and less on the other's, thus increasing the average knowledge of the problem being tackled.

I would also expect the staff to be familiar with farming as well so therefore why overly complicate things. Plus how is what you propose any different from what we have now

Because we have a plethora of various plants. Would a farmer who farms corn be as skilled as a farmer who farms wheat, when matters of wheat is at hand?

[Doing it Rightland]

I would also expect the staff to be familiar with farming as well

I would also hope so.

so therefore why overly complicate things.

I don't follow. Where is the complication? It's literally just letting each sphere deal with its own issues.

Plus how is what you propose any different from what we have now

Because currently, a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well (whose own agendas may prompt ineffective, strangling, or no proper policies on the issues). What I propose is simply letting rural counties handle rural issues and letting urban counties handle urban issues.

[Telconi]

I don't think it would be more complicated. Of anything, it would be simpler. With our current setup, yes the chair of the department would be from a rural county, but at the same time the department's actions would be subject to urban legislators. Their time is better spent with stuff like zoning and public transit development. In my system, the urban and rural legislators would focus more on their own constituencies and problems and less on the other's, thus increasing the average knowledge of the problem being tackled.

I would also expect the staff to be familiar with farming as well so therefore why overly complicate things. Plus how is what you propose any different from what we have now

Expectin anything positive from the CDFA is bad juju.

[San Lumen]

I would also expect the staff to be familiar with farming as well

I would also hope so.

so therefore why overly complicate things.

I don't follow. Where is the complication? It's literally just letting each sphere deal with its own issues.

Plus how is what you propose any different from what we have now

Because currently, a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well (whose own agendas may prompt ineffective, strangling, or no proper policies on the issues). What I propose is simply letting rural counties handle rural issues and letting urban counties handle urban issues.

Well thats how a democracy works. Hamilton County, New York is in the same state as the Bronx. Issues they have can indirectly affect the other county. Everything is interconnected. No one is in a bubble.

[Telconi]

I would also hope so.


I don't follow. Where is the complication? It's literally just letting each sphere deal with its own issues.


Because currently, a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well (whose own agendas may prompt ineffective, strangling, or no proper policies on the issues). What I propose is simply letting rural counties handle rural issues and letting urban counties handle urban issues.

Well thats how a democracy works. Hamilton County, New York is in the same state as the Bronx. Issues they have can indirectly affect the other county. Everything is interconnected. No one is in a bubble.

Perhaps they shouldn't be.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The way I see it, this is a case of deciding whether to disenfranchise the majority or the minority, and that's an easy choice to make. Urban areas have a much higher population and thus contribute more tax money than rural areas, so they should logically have far more representation. If they're going to be paying for the vast majority of the legislation passed, it makes sense that they should have the vast majority of the political power.

[San Lumen]

Well thats how a democracy works. Hamilton County, New York is in the same state as the Bronx. Issues they have can indirectly affect the other county. Everything is interconnected. No one is in a bubble.

Perhaps they shouldn't be.

And how in the world are you going to change that?

The way I see it, this is a case of deciding whether to disenfranchise the majority or the minority, and that's an easy choice to make. Urban areas have a much higher population and thus contribute more tax money than rural areas, so they should logically have far more representation. If they're going to be paying for the vast majority of the legislation passed, it makes sense that they should have the vast majority of the political power.

Amazing someone who understands how the basic tenets of government work. Try telling that to some of the posters here

[Holy Tedalonia]

The way I see it, this is a case of deciding whether to disenfranchise the majority or the minority, and that's an easy choice to make. Urban areas have a much higher population and thus contribute more tax money than rural areas, so they should logically have far more representation. If they're going to be paying for the vast majority of the legislation passed, it makes sense that they should have the vast majority of the political power.

The rural areas makes food for you, you cant live without food. As by your logic, since clearly rural areas importance, outweighs urban, rural should be the ones getting the votes.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Perhaps they shouldn't be.

And how in the world are you going to change that?

The way I see it, this is a case of deciding whether to disenfranchise the majority or the minority, and that's an easy choice to make. Urban areas have a much higher population and thus contribute more tax money than rural areas, so they should logically have far more representation. If they're going to be paying for the vast majority of the legislation passed, it makes sense that they should have the vast majority of the political power.

Amazing someone who understands how the basic tenets of government work. Try telling that to some of the posters here

Your lack of understanding our position, doesnt mean we don’t understand the basic tenets of government work.

[Telconi]

Perhaps they shouldn't be.

And how in the world are you going to change that?

The way I see it, this is a case of deciding whether to disenfranchise the majority or the minority, and that's an easy choice to make. Urban areas have a much higher population and thus contribute more tax money than rural areas, so they should logically have far more representation. If they're going to be paying for the vast majority of the legislation passed, it makes sense that they should have the vast majority of the political power.

Amazing someone who understands how the basic tenets of government work. Try telling that to some of the posters here

You do understand that someone can understand something and still oppose it right? I understand the basics of how the triangular trade route worked, and still think it needed killing with fire.

[Doing it Rightland]

Well thats how a democracy works.

What specific part of my post were you responding to here

Hamilton County, New York is in the same state as the Bronx. Issues they have can indirectly affect the other county. Everything is interconnected. No one is in a bubble.

Same state doesn't mean everything's interconnected. Zoning regulations in NYC shouldn't have anything to do with rural farming subsidies. Let the urban people handle the city zoning, and let the rural counties do their farming stuff. Of course when things affect other counties, cooperation is needed. That's where the state government would come in; fostering dialogue between counties to find solutions.

The way I see it, this is a case of deciding whether to disenfranchise the majority or the minority, and that's an easy choice to make. Urban areas have a much higher population and thus contribute more tax money than rural areas, so they should logically have far more representation. If they're going to be paying for the vast majority of the legislation passed, it makes sense that they should have the vast majority of the political power.

Amazing someone who understands how the basic tenets of government work. Try telling that to some of the posters here

I'm not condoning disenfranchising anyone. I'm suggesting you let everyone handle their own problems, and only work together when those problems span the divide. You just let urban counties use urban taxes to fund urban things. Let rural counties use rural taxes to fund rural things.

Second, don't tell me I don't understand the basic tenets of government. I'm not an idiot, and neither are you. We're just people not seeing eye to eye.

[San Lumen]

Well thats how a democracy works.

What specific part of my post were you responding to here

Hamilton County, New York is in the same state as the Bronx. Issues they have can indirectly affect the other county. Everything is interconnected. No one is in a bubble.

Same state doesn't mean everything's interconnected. Zoning regulations in NYC shouldn't have anything to do with rural farming subsidies. Let the urban people handle the city zoning, and let the rural counties do their farming stuff. Of course when things affect other counties, cooperation is needed. That's where the state government would come in; fostering dialogue between counties to find solutions.

Amazing someone who understands how the basic tenets of government work. Try telling that to some of the posters here

I'm not condoning disenfranchising anyone. I'm suggesting you let everyone handle their own problems, and only work together when those problems span the divide. You just let urban counties use urban taxes to fund urban things. Let rural counties use rural taxes to fund rural things.

Second, don't tell me I don't understand the basic tenets of government. I'm not an idiot, and neither are you. We're just people not seeing eye to eye.

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

Zoning regulations in NYC dont have anything to do with farming subsidies and are debated separately

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

[Northern Davincia]

What specific part of my post were you responding to here


Same state doesn't mean everything's interconnected. Zoning regulations in NYC shouldn't have anything to do with rural farming subsidies. Let the urban people handle the city zoning, and let the rural counties do their farming stuff. Of course when things affect other counties, cooperation is needed. That's where the state government would come in; fostering dialogue between counties to find solutions.


I'm not condoning disenfranchising anyone. I'm suggesting you let everyone handle their own problems, and only work together when those problems span the divide. You just let urban counties use urban taxes to fund urban things. Let rural counties use rural taxes to fund rural things.

Second, don't tell me I don't understand the basic tenets of government. I'm not an idiot, and neither are you. We're just people not seeing eye to eye.

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

Zoning regulations in NYC dont have anything to do with farming subsidies and are debated separately

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

"We give the lowly rural peasants money so they should be obedient to our whims."

[Telconi]

What specific part of my post were you responding to here


Same state doesn't mean everything's interconnected. Zoning regulations in NYC shouldn't have anything to do with rural farming subsidies. Let the urban people handle the city zoning, and let the rural counties do their farming stuff. Of course when things affect other counties, cooperation is needed. That's where the state government would come in; fostering dialogue between counties to find solutions.


I'm not condoning disenfranchising anyone. I'm suggesting you let everyone handle their own problems, and only work together when those problems span the divide. You just let urban counties use urban taxes to fund urban things. Let rural counties use rural taxes to fund rural things.

Second, don't tell me I don't understand the basic tenets of government. I'm not an idiot, and neither are you. We're just people not seeing eye to eye.

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

Zoning regulations in NYC dont have anything to do with farming subsidies and are debated separately

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

You stopped burdening some poor sap in Buffalo with your commuter costs?

[Telconi]

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

Zoning regulations in NYC dont have anything to do with farming subsidies and are debated separately

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

"We give the lowly rural peasants money so they should be obedient to our whims."

Unironically the thought process of urbanites.

[San Lumen]

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

Zoning regulations in NYC dont have anything to do with farming subsidies and are debated separately

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

"We give the lowly rural peasants money so they should be obedient to our whims."

Not even remotely how it works.

"We give the lowly rural peasants money so they should be obedient to our whims."

Unironically the thought process of urbanites.

No it isnt

[Telconi]

"We give the lowly rural peasants money so they should be obedient to our whims."

Not even remotely how it works.

Unironically the thought process of urbanites.

No it isnt

You yourself have explicitly stated that the government doesn't mistreat minority people because they pave roads...

[San Lumen]

Not even remotely how it works.

No it isnt

You yourself have explicitly stated that the government doesn't mistreat minority people because they pave roads...

They dont mistreat anyone for the most part except in cases where they make it harder to vote or dont respect the outcome of an election.

Where do you think the money to pave your state roads comes from? your tax dollars

[Telconi]

You yourself have explicitly stated that the government doesn't mistreat minority people because they pave roads...

They dont mistreat anyone for the most part except in cases where they make it harder to vote or dont respect the outcome of an election.

Where do you think the money to pave your state roads comes from? your tax dollars

Or when they ban guns.

It doesn't matter...

[San Lumen]

They dont mistreat anyone for the most part except in cases where they make it harder to vote or dont respect the outcome of an election.

Where do you think the money to pave your state roads comes from? your tax dollars

Or when they ban guns.

It doesn't matter...

Which is quite literally all you care about

Why doesn't it matter?

[Northern Davincia]

Or when they ban guns.

It doesn't matter...

Which is quite literally all you care about

Why doesn't it matter?

Telconi cares about basic rights, go figure.

[San Lumen]

Which is quite literally all you care about

Why doesn't it matter?

Telconi cares about basic rights, go figure.

And they have also called for the peaceful transfer of power to not be respected, believe there is some mass conspiracy against them and that the majority of his state are awful people for the simply fact people have the audacity to disagree with him