NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:What incentive do they have to care? They will win no matter what.

There shouldn't be a representative, we should decide what we do on a grassroots level instead of having trustees make our decisions for us, regardless of how bad those decisions are.

So just have local government and no state government?

San Lumen wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:What incentive do they have to care? They will win no matter what.

There shouldn't be a representative, we should decide what we do on a grassroots level instead of having trustees make our decisions for us, regardless of how bad those decisions are.

So just have local government and no state government?

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
So just have local government and no state government?

Yes, there should be no state. We should be a federation of local communes.

San Lumen wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Yes, there should be no state. We should be a federation of local communes.

Well that is never going to happen

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.

San Lumen wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:It was pretty much the status quo in Europe until the 1400's.

well this isnt the 1400s

San Lumen wrote:

Diopolis wrote:All blue voters in a given state should be assigned one particular district, with a single polling booth open only at 2 AM- 3AM and located at the bottom of the state's largest lake. All other districts should be reliably red.

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

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.

San Lumen wrote:

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

In a state like Nevada 75 percent of the population resides in Clark County other 15 percent in Reno. That's 90 percent of the population in two counties out of seventeen. if you went back to the previous system you would have 90 percent of the population being represented by four people out of 34. Thats if you want two senators per county. How could that body claim to have any legitimacy to speak for the majority of the State?

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
In a state like Nevada 75 percent of the population resides in Clark County other 15 percent in Reno. That's 90 percent of the population in two counties out of seventeen. if you went back to the previous system you would have 90 percent of the population being represented by four people out of 34. Thats if you want two senators per county. How could that body claim to have any legitimacy to speak for the majority of the State?

Because their decisions would represent the majority of the counties?

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Because their decisions would represent the majority of the counties?

But not a majority of the people

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:But not a majority of the people

That's right.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
Because their decisions would represent the majority of the counties?

But not a majority of the people

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:But not a majority of the people

That's what the lower house exists for.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
That's right.

And why is that fair or democratic?

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:That's what the lower house exists for.

and 90 percent of the population ought to be represented by only four people out of 34 as in Nevada's case and in Delaware sixty percent ought to be represented by only two people out of six senators?

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
And why is that fair or democratic?

I don't recall saying it was fair, as for democratic, it is because such representatives would be elected.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:That's what the lower house exists for.

and 90 percent of the population ought to be represented by only four people out of 34 as in Nevada's case and in Delaware sixty percent ought to be represented by only two people out of six senators?

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:That's what the lower house exists for.

and 90 percent of the population ought to be represented by only four people out of 34 as in Nevada's case and in Delaware sixty percent ought to be represented by only two people out of six senators?

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
I don't recall saying it was fair, as for democratic, it is because such representatives would be elected.

And how could they claim to be making laws that represent everyone when they only represent ten percent of the population?

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
I don't recall saying it was fair, as for democratic, it is because such representatives would be elected.

And how could they claim to be making laws that represent everyone when they only represent ten percent of the population?

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
And how could they claim to be making laws that represent everyone when they only represent ten percent of the population?

The can't.

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
The can't.

So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

San Lumen wrote:

Telconi wrote:
The can't.

So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

Telconi wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

No government represents everyone.