Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[San Lumen]

Live in a dictatorship you do not. There is a fundamental difference between a dictatorship and choosing who your representatives are in a free and fair election.

I don't recall claiming that I did. And I don't recall claiming there wasn't.

You have made repeated claims about being oppressed by Sacramento and sometimes Washington and called areas of your state horrible for voting a certain way

[Telconi]

I don't recall claiming that I did. And I don't recall claiming there wasn't.

You have made repeated claims about being oppressed by Sacramento and sometimes Washington and called areas of your state horrible for voting a certain way

Indeed, is there a point here?

[San Lumen]

You have made repeated claims about being oppressed by Sacramento and sometimes Washington and called areas of your state horrible for voting a certain way

Indeed, is there a point here?

You only said that because there are more people in the Bay Area, Orange County or Los Angeles and don’t like that they have different opinions than you.

You are not oppressed by any stretch of the word. You are simply outvoted. Simple concept. They diwsnt mewn you disrupt the transition of power or a government’s ability to function.

[Telconi]

Indeed, is there a point here?

You only said that because there are more people in the Bay Area, Orange County or Los Angeles and don’t like that they have different opinions than you.

You are not oppressed by any stretch of the word. You are simply outvoted. Simple concept. They diwsnt mewn you disrupt the transition of power or a government’s ability to function.

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.

[San Lumen]

You only said that because there are more people in the Bay Area, Orange County or Los Angeles and don’t like that they have different opinions than you.

You are not oppressed by any stretch of the word. You are simply outvoted. Simple concept. They diwsnt mewn you disrupt the transition of power or a government’s ability to function.

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

[Telconi]

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

The only difference I can see is you like Jewish people.

What does a dictatorship have to do with anything? Sure there is. Don't see how that's helpful advice, but okay...

[Northern Davincia]

Of course you do.



Yes, I saw that. But it isn't the only one, if a horrifying dictators hip peacefully transfers power from one dictator to another, it doesn't magically become a functioning democracy. Rather they do or do not do this irrelevant.

Live in a dictatorship you do not. There is a fundamental difference between a dictatorship and choosing who your representatives are in a free and fair election.

Allow me to demonstrate why FPTP is systematically unfair.
Let's say we have a hypothetical state with three districts, and during an election, each district tallies their final results as 49%-51%. The majority receives their preferred candidate and thus 100% of statewide representation.
The minority has no voice of their own despite significant turnout.

[The Two Jerseys]

Live in a dictatorship you do not. There is a fundamental difference between a dictatorship and choosing who your representatives are in a free and fair election.

Allow me to demonstrate why FPTP is systematically unfair.
Let's say we have a hypothetical state with three districts, and during an election, each district tallies their final results as 49%-51%. The majority receives their preferred candidate and thus 100% of statewide representation.
The minority has no voice of their own despite significant turnout.

I gave that same example 52 hours ago, let's see if Lumen actually responds to you...

[Doing it Rightland]

Live in a dictatorship you do not. There is a fundamental difference between a dictatorship and choosing who your representatives are in a free and fair election.

Allow me to demonstrate why FPTP is systematically unfair.
Let's say we have a hypothetical state with three districts, and during an election, each district tallies their final results as 49%-51%. The majority receives their preferred candidate and thus 100% of statewide representation.
The minority has no voice of their own despite significant turnout.

Yeah, I think we can all agree FPTP is atrocious. Look at the UK parliament elections. I was informed earlier by Thermodolia that South Belfast was most recently the worst, with 24% of the votes going to the winner. The more parties there are the worse it gets.

Personally, I like a single transferrable vote. Basically, you rank candidates, and if your first one loses, the vote goes to your next choice. It's also known as "instant runoff voting" and I think it's pretty cool.

But, back to the issue we ought to be discussing here; weighting votes. I don't think any votes should inherently have to be weighted so long as politicians can recognize that their experiences (whether Urban or Rural) aren't as applicable in the opposite region and defer to the judgement of those who have more experience in the target region. Unfortunately, I think a lot of politicians seem to miss this, and as a result, weighting the geographic minority's votes is somewhat needed. In the US, this is rural votes. But in other countries, it may end up being urban voters. Thoughts?

[San Lumen]

Allow me to demonstrate why FPTP is systematically unfair.
Let's say we have a hypothetical state with three districts, and during an election, each district tallies their final results as 49%-51%. The majority receives their preferred candidate and thus 100% of statewide representation.
The minority has no voice of their own despite significant turnout.

Yeah, I think we can all agree FPTP is atrocious. Look at the UK parliament elections. I was informed earlier by Thermodolia that South Belfast was most recently the worst, with 24% of the votes going to the winner. The more parties there are the worse it gets.

Personally, I like a single transferrable vote. Basically, you rank candidates, and if your first one loses, the vote goes to your next choice. It's also known as "instant runoff voting" and I think it's pretty cool.

But, back to the issue we ought to be discussing here; weighting votes. I don't think any votes should inherently have to be weighted so long as politicians can recognize that their experiences (whether Urban or Rural) aren't as applicable in the opposite region and defer to the judgement of those who have more experience in the target region. Unfortunately, I think a lot of politicians seem to miss this, and as a result, weighting the geographic minority's votes is somewhat needed. In the US, this is rural votes. But in other countries, it may end up being urban voters. Thoughts?

I would have no issue with STV but it sounds very similar to IRV what’s the difference?

[Doing it Rightland]

I would have no issue with STV but it sounds very similar to IRV what’s the difference?

So far as I'm aware, they're just different names for the same thing.

Yay consensus!

[Telconi]

Allow me to demonstrate why FPTP is systematically unfair.
Let's say we have a hypothetical state with three districts, and during an election, each district tallies their final results as 49%-51%. The majority receives their preferred candidate and thus 100% of statewide representation.
The minority has no voice of their own despite significant turnout.

Yeah, I think we can all agree FPTP is atrocious. Look at the UK parliament elections. I was informed earlier by Thermodolia that South Belfast was most recently the worst, with 24% of the votes going to the winner. The more parties there are the worse it gets.

Personally, I like a single transferrable vote. Basically, you rank candidates, and if your first one loses, the vote goes to your next choice. It's also known as "instant runoff voting" and I think it's pretty cool.

But, back to the issue we ought to be discussing here; weighting votes. I don't think any votes should inherently have to be weighted so long as politicians can recognize that their experiences (whether Urban or Rural) aren't as applicable in the opposite region and defer to the judgement of those who have more experience in the target region. Unfortunately, I think a lot of politicians seem to miss this, and as a result, weighting the geographic minority's votes is somewhat needed. In the US, this is rural votes. But in other countries, it may end up being urban voters. Thoughts?

I would say that an inhibition on more tilted policies could essentially force lawmakers to defer.

[San Lumen]

I would have no issue with STV but it sounds very similar to IRV what’s the difference?

So far as I'm aware, they're just different names for the same thing.

Yay consensus!

I’m glad we have reached agreement. It doesn’t require a massive revamping of the whole electoral process and gives people more choice which is what many are calling for

Yeah, I think we can all agree FPTP is atrocious. Look at the UK parliament elections. I was informed earlier by Thermodolia that South Belfast was most recently the worst, with 24% of the votes going to the winner. The more parties there are the worse it gets.

Personally, I like a single transferrable vote. Basically, you rank candidates, and if your first one loses, the vote goes to your next choice. It's also known as "instant runoff voting" and I think it's pretty cool.

But, back to the issue we ought to be discussing here; weighting votes. I don't think any votes should inherently have to be weighted so long as politicians can recognize that their experiences (whether Urban or Rural) aren't as applicable in the opposite region and defer to the judgement of those who have more experience in the target region. Unfortunately, I think a lot of politicians seem to miss this, and as a result, weighting the geographic minority's votes is somewhat needed. In the US, this is rural votes. But in other countries, it may end up being urban voters. Thoughts?

I would say that an inhibition on more tilted policies could essentially force lawmakers to defer.

What do you mean?

[Inmeria]

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?

[Thermodolia]

You do know that Israel is roughly the same size as Vancouver Island right? They don’t need individual districts.


Actually it’s at a pretty normal level. Israel has a threshold of 3.5% while the Netherlands and several other European nations have far less. The Netherlands technically has a threshold of 0.67% yet extremist parties don’t hold the power in said European nations.

Maybe it’s not the threshold, which is actually used to keep extremist parties out of power, but the fact that Israelis like extremist parties.


And?

Perhaps they do but having so many parties leads to very unstable coalitions and frequent elections

Actually not really. Most Israeli coalition are made up of like minded parties so they are much more stable

[Thermodolia]

That citing elections as a problem seems to be at odds with your previous expressions of valueach towards democracy.

I’d rather not have unstable coalitions and having to pander to the far left or far right to remain in power

Actually most coalitions under PR systems tend towards the center and not the extremes. Actually under FPTP you’re more likely to have extremist parties in power

[Thermodolia]

Live in a dictatorship you do not. There is a fundamental difference between a dictatorship and choosing who your representatives are in a free and fair election.

Allow me to demonstrate why FPTP is systematically unfair.
Let's say we have a hypothetical state with three districts, and during an election, each district tallies their final results as 49%-51%. The majority receives their preferred candidate and thus 100% of statewide representation.
The minority has no voice of their own despite significant turnout.

Or even worse. We have FPTP but we have multiple parties, as FPTP is most votes wins you don’t need 51% to win, all running for the same three seats. Party A wins the seats with the following percentages.
1. 24%
2. 34%
3. 18%

Party A has complete control of the chamber even though they won less than 40% in each seat. More than 60% of the people are unrepresentated

[Thermodolia]

I would have no issue with STV but it sounds very similar to IRV what’s the difference?

So far as I'm aware, they're just different names for the same thing.

Yay consensus!

No they are not. IRV elects a single winner while STV elects multiple. So instead of having five small single member districts you have one 5 member district.

[Doing it Rightland]

So far as I'm aware, they're just different names for the same thing.

Yay consensus!

No they are not. IRV elects a single winner while STV elects multiple. So instead of having five small single member districts you have one 5 member district.

Yeah, that's right. I did a poor job explaining it. The youtube channel "CGP Grey" does a much better job; he's made all sorts of videos on voting. I suggest everyone check them out.

[Wallenburg]

You only said that because there are more people in the Bay Area, Orange County or Los Angeles and don’t like that they have different opinions than you.

You are not oppressed by any stretch of the word. You are simply outvoted. Simple concept. They diwsnt mewn you disrupt the transition of power or a government’s ability to function.

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.

Being denied your right to practice your religion or being shoved into camps because of your race or faith is nowhere near similar to not being given quite as much of a priority when it comes to state industrial subsidies or the public water budget. Stop comparing the democratic allocation of state resources to the Holocaust, it's both unconvincing and highly dismissive of the horror of genocide.

[San Lumen]

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?

Its not that simple. Some things cannot and should not be decided at the local level unless you want a patchwork of laws and much confusion.

I;ll give you a prime example even though it is the law of the land for now. Same sex marriage. Lets say a gay couple gets married in Albany where same sex marriage is legal and recognized and then moves to a county where it is not. Why should they all of a sudden not be married because they moved within in the state?

[Neutraligon]

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.

[Telconi]

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?

Its not that simple. Some things cannot and should not be decided at the local level unless you want a patchwork of laws and much confusion.

I;ll give you a prime example even though it is the law of the land for now. Same sex marriage. Lets say a gay couple gets married in Albany where same sex marriage is legal and recognized and then moves to a county where it is not. Why should they all of a sudden not be married because they moved within in the state?

I mean. this is literally already how states are...

[San Lumen]

Its not that simple. Some things cannot and should not be decided at the local level unless you want a patchwork of laws and much confusion.

I;ll give you a prime example even though it is the law of the land for now. Same sex marriage. Lets say a gay couple gets married in Albany where same sex marriage is legal and recognized and then moves to a county where it is not. Why should they all of a sudden not be married because they moved within in the state?

I mean. this is literally already how states are...

No they aren't. Some things are local issues and some things are not

[Telconi]

I mean. this is literally already how states are...

No they aren't. Some things are local issues and some things are not

States do have different laws...