NationStates

I personally think it would be good if every county had equally votes,that way every vote would count and not just the major cities and suberbs.it would help keep elections fairer to both urban and rual voters. I know this makes me sound like a leftist but if you look at my nation you will know I'm not,I'm more center right.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

Telconi wrote:
The subject is state governments, do address the actual conversation please.

All 50 state government s in the US have bicameral congress's. My statement covers state as well as federal governments.

No, not all do, and every one that does has two population based chambers, so no. it doesnt.

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.

Dresderstan wrote:

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:All 50 state government s in the US have bicameral congress's. My statement covers state as well as federal governments.

Actually not all of them do, Nebraska is the only state with a unicameral state legislature.

Touche', learn something new every day. Thank you.

Christian Confederation wrote:I personally think it would be good if every county had equally votes,that way every vote would count and not just the major cities and suberbs.it would help keep elections fairer to both urban and rual voters. I know this makes me sound like a leftist but if you look at my nation you will know I'm not,I'm more center right.

That what we already do. Thats what one man one vote is. A vote in a major city counts the same as someone on a farm

Telconi wrote:

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:All 50 state government s in the US have bicameral congress's. My statement covers state as well as federal governments.

No, not all do, and every one that does has two population based chambers, so no. it doesnt.

Regardless I was addressing the conversation.

Benjabobaria wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
That is not physically possible and obvious nonsense. Can you give a actual response instead of sheer absurdity?

I believe they are mocking the absurdity of Republican voting laws by exaggerating things

Rural votes have long been too heavily weighted in America, and the Senate should be abolished/replaced with a house elected by a national popular vote.

Nope. I entirely seriously believe that until we have the stones to reject democracy explicitly, we should do that to keep the left wingers from contaminating our precious political process.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

Telconi wrote:
No, not all do, and every one that does has two population based chambers, so no. it doesnt.

Regardless I was addressing the conversation.

Not accurately...

San Lumen wrote:

Christian Confederation wrote:I personally think it would be good if every county had equally votes,that way every vote would count and not just the major cities and suberbs.it would help keep elections fairer to both urban and rual voters. I know this makes me sound like a leftist but if you look at my nation you will know I'm not,I'm more center right.

That what we already do. Thats what one man one vote is. A vote in a major city counts the same as someone on a farm

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

Wallenburg wrote: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.

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

Telconi wrote:

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:Regardless I was addressing the conversation.

Not accurately...

File a complaint than. 98% correct, 2% ocd trigger.

Something you probably didn't even know until you googled it after my rebuttle.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Not accurately...

File a complaint than. 98% correct, 2% ocd trigger.

Your statement applies to literally zero states, so, more like 0% correct.

Diopolis wrote:

Benjabobaria wrote:I believe they are mocking the absurdity of Republican voting laws by exaggerating things

Rural votes have long been too heavily weighted in America, and the Senate should be abolished/replaced with a house elected by a national popular vote.

Nope. I entirely seriously believe that until we have the stones to reject democracy explicitly, we should do that to keep the left wingers from contaminating our precious political process.

I guess their ideas are too good to refute.

Telconi wrote:

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:File a complaint than. 98% correct, 2% ocd trigger.

Your statement applies to literally zero states, so, more like 0% correct.

You are wrong and wasting my time now. Learn to comprehend what you read.

Unstoppable Empire of Doom wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Your statement applies to literally zero states, so, more like 0% correct.

You are wrong and wasting my time now. Learn to comprehend what you read.

So, tell me please, in which states to the Senates exist to balance popular vote?

Well, the US system is:
House determined on population
Each state gets 2 Senate seats
So...

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Well that is never going to happen

It was pretty much the status quo in Europe until the 1400's.

The population was also less than 5% of what it is now.

Telconi wrote:

Wallenburg wrote: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.

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

"We spit in the face of rule by the people all the time" isn't a good argument.

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
That what we already do. Thats what one man one vote is. A vote in a major city counts the same as someone on a farm

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?

Telconi wrote:

Wallenburg wrote: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.

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

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Upper houses aren't meant to represent the majority of people, they are meant to represent minority interests.

Precisely.

The House represents the majority of people and thus should match the population as best as possible. Which is why I support PR voting system for the house.

While the senate should represent the states.

A major issue that i see often is that though technically our elected officials are meant to represent everyone, the truth of the matter is that the officials views and policy decisions may not align to our own. In that case you aren't being represented because your views are not present among the decision making. Additionally, if a politician understands that they can carry a state without having to appeal to a major demographic, then the decisions that they make in office will be tailored to the constituents that brought them victory in the last election. FPTP is a horrible system to be honest, it doesn't maximize voter happiness, which is a major flaw in a democracy. If there should be reform at all, we should be transitioning to Single Transferable Vote, or another method to assign representation in our legislature.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's right.

And why is that fair or democratic?

You’re one to talk. Do I need to remind you about how you said you don’t give a shit about minorities?

Wallenburg wrote: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.

Personally I think we should go with a PR House and an STV senate

Wallenburg wrote:

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

"We spit in the face of rule by the people all the time" isn't a good argument.

It really is though, because our society functions on the basis of "spitting in the face of rule by the people"

Some people votes are worth more
That’s the moral