Big City Political Influence...

[Sucrati]

I have grown very tired of how larger cities have too much political influence, I know it has been this way since the dawn of civilization, but bigger settlements/cities tend to make the rules over those who live outside the metropolian area.

Certain Cities in America (And other places, but I cannot speak for those there), tend to elect the same political beings almost everytime, and it screws over the rest of the State.

Example: Chicagoland Area (Including Chicago) Illinois, they tend to elect many people that wind up getting into political trouble (especially governors, which the last two so far in my memory have gone to PRISON.

I believe there was a survey completed, noting Springfield IL to be one of the most corrupted state capitals, because of most representatives (state legislatures) coming from the north, it screws people from I-80 south (Who the Chicagoians refer as 'Southern Illinoisians')

I know of other cities and states that get screwed over because of large population areas dominating the political spectrum, its just not against any particular party, its just big city politics.

(Illinois has a 13 Billion Deficit, and it'll keep going, there are states that are worse off, I know)

I would support measures that would allow metropolian areas of a particular size to make their own states, while the other areas will remain as the old state, maybe then things would work out better for the less populated or 'rural' areas.

Have you ever felt this way about your particular place of residence, about how big-city politics nearly bankrupts EVERY state or other area?

[Vectrova]

ITT: Democracy is only fair if the majority is ignored.

... Wait.

[Laerod]

I have grown very tired of how larger cities have too much political influence, I know it has been this way since the dawn of civilization, but bigger settlements/cities tend to make the rules over those who live outside the metropolian area.

This might be because more people live in cities than don't.

[Free Soviets]

haha, lesser illinois without chicagoland would be like mad max. or idaho. you guys wouldn't be able to pave your roads outside of the chicago-collegetown outposts.

[Soheran]

I'll gladly take that deal, on the condition that we make representation in the Senate proportionate to population.

[Norstal]

I'll gladly take that deal, on the condition that we make representation in the Senate proportionate to population.

You want to have another House of Reps. ? Defeats the entire purpose of having senators in the first place.

[Free Soviets]

I'll gladly take that deal, on the condition that we make representation in the Senate proportionate to population.

You want to have another House of Reps. ? Defeats the entire purpose of having senators in the first place.

there isn't really a valid purpose to having senators in the first place...

[Norstal]

You want to have another House of Reps. ? Defeats the entire purpose of having senators in the first place.

there isn't really a valid purpose to having senators in the first place...

Except for Bicameral legislature.

[MisanthropicPopulism]

there isn't really a valid purpose to having senators in the first place...

Except for Bicameral legislature.

Which translates to "shits and giggles."

[Northwest Slobovia]

I would support measures that would allow metropolian areas of a particular size to make their own states, while the other areas will remain as the old state, maybe then things would work out better for the less populated or 'rural' areas.

You mean something like:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

?

Looks like you just need to ask your local corrupt state gov't for the OK, and then Congress to bless it. Piece of cake.

[Sarkhaan]

I have grown very tired of how larger cities have too much political influence, I know it has been this way since the dawn of civilization, but bigger settlements/cities tend to make the rules over those who live outside the metropolian area.

Certain Cities in America (And other places, but I cannot speak for those there), tend to elect the same political beings almost everytime, and it screws over the rest of the State.

Example: Chicagoland Area (Including Chicago) Illinois, they tend to elect many people that wind up getting into political trouble (especially governors, which the last two so far in my memory have gone to PRISON.

I believe there was a survey completed, noting Springfield IL to be one of the most corrupted state capitals, because of most representatives (state legislatures) coming from the north, it screws people from I-80 south (Who the Chicagoians refer as 'Southern Illinoisians')

I know of other cities and states that get screwed over because of large population areas dominating the political spectrum, its just not against any particular party, its just big city politics.

(Illinois has a 13 Billion Deficit, and it'll keep going, there are states that are worse off, I know)

I would support measures that would allow metropolian areas of a particular size to make their own states, while the other areas will remain as the old state, maybe then things would work out better for the less populated or 'rural' areas.

Have you ever felt this way about your particular place of residence, about how big-city politics nearly bankrupts EVERY state or other area?

Given the fact that more people live in the major population centers (crazy how that works, no?), no, I would not say anyone is screwed over by the fact that they dominate in politics. You also seem to assume that people living in rural areas would never vote in corrupt politicians. That just isn't true.

Of course, what IS true is that the major population centers tend to be givers rather than getters when it comes to tax distribution, and that (at least in the US) life in rural areas is heavily, heavily subsidized by those living in cities.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Of course, what IS true is that the major population centers tend to be givers rather than getters when it comes to tax distribution, and that (at least in the US) life in rural areas is heavily, heavily subsidized by those living in cities.

Really? I hadn't heard that before... got a cite/link? I'm not denying it, but I'm a bit surprised by it. I would have guessed some cities get and some give.

[Soheran]

You want to have another House of Reps. ?

I'd love another House of Representatives!

But while I hate the US Senate and think it is in dire need of serious reform, my purposes in making that qualification were more nakedly partisan: dividing states like Minnesota, Illinois, California, Washington, and New York according to their rural/urban political divides would probably result in a whole bunch more Republican senators, and there are way too many of those already.

[Sucrati]

You want to have another House of Reps. ?

I'd love another House of Representatives!

But while I hate the US Senate and think it is in dire need of serious reform, my purposes in making that qualification were more nakedly partisan: dividing states like Minnesota, Illinois, California, Washington, and New York according to their rural/urban political divides would probably result in a whole bunch more Republican senators, and there are way too many of those already.

No, there are too many Democrat Senators (In fact the new Republican Senator from IL has been delayed due to something, not sure though)

Plus Senators Are In the US Senate, Not the House of Representatives

No, Every State, Gets Two Senators, So Technically, Yes, There Would Be More Republicans (Though I would like other Right Wing Parties to be in there preferebly Libertarians, Hell Moderate Conservatives would do wonders.)

Basically My Question is This: Do you feel the city politics have finally reached a tipping point, or are we going to keep electing those who practice the same politics?

[Free Soviets]

No, there are too many Democrat Senators

not if vote totals matter. see, the thing is is that even the house of representatives over-represents republicans. a fair distribution of political power results in more democrats in office nationally. making the unpopulated parts of states be their own states without fixing the senate results in even more unjust skewing towards the minority party.

[Soheran]

No, there are too many Democrat Senators (In fact the new Republican Senator from IL has been delayed due to something, not sure though)

To my knowledge, Mark Kirk has already been sworn in.

No, Every State, Gets Two Senators, So Technically, Yes, There Would Be More Republicans (Though I would like other Right Wing Parties to be in there preferebly Libertarians, Hell Moderate Conservatives would do wonders.)

Well, if we keep the current Senate apportionment system, your proposal is no longer party-neutral, and since I think it will probably help the Republicans, I'm not too enthusiastic about it.

Basically My Question is This: Do you feel the city politics have finally reached a tipping point, or are we going to keep electing those who practice the same politics?

Is this a descriptive question? I think politics will continue working more or less as they have in recent years. The 2010 elections were basically a reiteration of the traditional party coalitions; the Democrats lost ground, but there was no realignment of constituencies. So cities will continue to vote more or less as they always have, and in states where the cities plus sympathetic surrounding suburbs command a majority, "big-city politics" will continue to have a large influence.

Your proposal is wholly impractical and is not going to happen, but it is probably a reasonably good idea on small-d democratic grounds.

[Bottle]

I have grown very tired of how larger cities have too much political influence, I know it has been this way since the dawn of civilization, but bigger settlements/cities tend to make the rules over those who live outside the metropolian area.

This might be because more people live in cities than don't.

This.

[Sarkhaan]

Of course, what IS true is that the major population centers tend to be givers rather than getters when it comes to tax distribution, and that (at least in the US) life in rural areas is heavily, heavily subsidized by those living in cities.

Really? I hadn't heard that before... got a cite/link? I'm not denying it, but I'm a bit surprised by it. I would have guessed some cities get and some give.

More people are paying into resources.

A fire department in a major city will be covering many more people than that of a small town. Same with police and ambulance. More people are using the roads, so cost per person is less. Mail delivery is more efficient. City life uses fewer resources per capita thanks to more efficient use of said resources (few people have a full plot of land in the heart of a major city, and even on the outskirts, they are likely to share a wall with a neighbor).

Add the fact that highways are heavily subsidized and somewhat mandatory for modern rural life, and you have a huge cost difference.

As for "some cities get and some give", I did say "tend to". I'm sure there are exceptions.

[Unidox]

I have grown very tired of how larger cities have too much political influence, I know it has been this way since the dawn of civilization, but bigger settlements/cities tend to make the rules over those who live outside the metropolian area.

This might be because more people live in cities than don't.

And, play more of a role in a region's economics. You, wouldn't want to bite the hand that pays you; would you?

Plus, what Sarkhaan, Bottle, and Free Soviets have already stated.

[Sociobiology]

This might be because more people live in cities than don't.

And, play more of a role in a region's economics. You, wouldn't want to bite the hand that pays you; would you?

Plus, what Sarkhaan, Bottle, and Free Soviets have already stated.

cities don't have more they have less, the combined population of both Dakotas, Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado have enough people to justify one representative in th house TOGETHER, yet they each state has two, that gives a massive bias to the representation of rural areas. because there is a minimum number of representatives a state can have regardless of population that give unfair influeince to people who live in low population states.

[Gregourii]

And, play more of a role in a region's economics. You, wouldn't want to bite the hand that pays you; would you?

Plus, what Sarkhaan, Bottle, and Free Soviets have already stated.

cities don't have more they have less, the combined population of both Dakotas, Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado have enough people to justify one representative in th house TOGETHER, yet they each state has two, that gives a massive bias to the representation of rural areas. because there is a minimum number of representatives a state can have regardless of population that give unfair influeince to people who live in low population states.

You Do realize that most Metroplian Areas combined do have higer populations than the rest of the state right?

[Yenke-Bin]

haha, lesser illinois without chicagoland would be like mad max. or idaho. you guys wouldn't be able to pave your roads outside of the chicago-collegetown outposts.

Pft, if it weren't for us downstate, there would be no Chicagoland. History shows us this. The year with no sun, all the northern folks were starving to death, and come down to our end of the state begging for food. We kindly obliged..and now we get screwed over every chance possible.

[Free Soviets]

haha, lesser illinois without chicagoland would be like mad max. or idaho. you guys wouldn't be able to pave your roads outside of the chicago-collegetown outposts.

Pft, if it weren't for us downstate, there would be no Chicagoland. History shows us this. The year with no sun, all the northern folks were starving to death, and come down to our end of the state begging for food. We kindly obliged..and now we get screwed over every chance possible.

seems fair to me

[Sarkhaan]

And, play more of a role in a region's economics. You, wouldn't want to bite the hand that pays you; would you?

Plus, what Sarkhaan, Bottle, and Free Soviets have already stated.

cities don't have more they have less, the combined population of both Dakotas, Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado have enough people to justify one representative in th house TOGETHER, yet they each state has two, that gives a massive bias to the representation of rural areas. because there is a minimum number of representatives a state can have regardless of population that give unfair influeince to people who live in low population states.

A) The Dakotas and Wyoming have one representative in the house. Kansas has four, Colorado has seven.
B) If you meant senators, yes...less populated states (note: that isn't inherently rural. States like Delaware and Rhode Island are not rural, just very small) have more representation.
C) This extra representation is balanced by the House of Representatives
D) That isn't really what is being discussed. This thread is more focused upon regional politics, rather than federal (IE Chicago over Illinois, New York City over New York State, Boston over Massachusetts, the Bay Area and LA over California, etc.)
E) The post you were replying to was specifically about regional economics and taxation

[Yenke-Bin]

Pft, if it weren't for us downstate, there would be no Chicagoland. History shows us this. The year with no sun, all the northern folks were starving to death, and come down to our end of the state begging for food. We kindly obliged..and now we get screwed over every chance possible.

seems fair to me

Typical Chicagoan.