Should Rural Votes be Weighted Against Urban Votes?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

California still has like eight times as many Representatives all I don't see the issue.

Per capita low population states have almost 50% more representation. That is not 1 vote 1 person.

No, it's still literally one vote one person.

[Tekeristan]

Because they are literally a different cultural group, with different social beliefs and expectations, recognized as a different group of people under the law (function uniquely under the law), with a vastly different history to farmers. You display incredable ignorance towards this.

Sod off about the tribals thing. I goof'd. Is that what you wanted? Good Christ this has infuriated me. No wonder some folk hate 'city people'.

Farmers are a cultural group? Funny, here I was under the impression that it was a profession, a means of putting food on the table, and one that since the 19th century system of land scrip federal governments of north america and the imposition of reserves (land in which sedentary living must predominate by reason of size, and not of the urban kind) have been at least nominally interested in putting aboriginals to work in. In any case, this is the first I'm hearing of my grandparents not being farmers, despite, y'know, having farms. Indian status, nominal reserve affiliation and, of course, a few acres. Bit over 53rd parallel, not the best climate but land all the same.

All you are so far able to say is "they're different". Different laws, different background, whatever have you. Despite my repeated insistence, you have not once mentioned so much as a single particular difference. If I am displaying profound ignorance, you're doing quite a poor job of educating me, professor.

"sod off" about the tribals bit? Not, y'know, sorry for being seriously offensive? What do you want me to do, sweep it under the rug despite being directly insulted? Is that what you're doing, deriding city folks because you got compared to brown people? If you're permitted to whine in such a way, tell me: what am I therefore permitted to say, justifiably?

Rural people do live differently than urban ones. There are some small differences between rural life and urban life, even in the norms department. Different environments place different expectations and issues to the forefront.
There are cultural differences between 'farmers' and aboriginals, they're not the same group of people, and the people I'm largely referring to when I say 'farmers', is the heavy majority of white, Americanized-hemegony farmers. Since..

"The 2010 Census reports that approximately 78 percent of the population in rural and small town communities are white and non- Hispanic, compared to 64 percent of the population in the nation as a whole." - http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/resear ... ty-web.pdf

The large majority of rural people are white. When I also speak about rural America, I'm not talking about Indian reservations, because they're different legal entities under the eyes of the Federal gov't and have unique issues of their own.
Do aboriginal farmers and white farmers likely have some of the same qualms and challenges? Yes. But they come from different social groups, with different norms and vastly different circumstances, especially if the former is on a reservation. When you're referring to something like culture shock, cultural expectations and circumstance matter.

I don't think comparing all farmers to aboriginals/reservations, who are not all farmers and have their own circumstances, is not a valid solution for both parties. The Reservation Act is not akin to the Homestead act. There are different issues at play.
You know, the reasons your grandparents had that farm in the first place, and not prime strips behind the Mississippi as they were promised about a dozen times.

If not? Then oh well, I'm just a racist white farmer. What would I know about rural life, rural issues, or American history? I should've remembered that it's illegal for me to feel offended.

[Tekeristan]

Per capita low population states have almost 50% more representation. That is not 1 vote 1 person.

No, it's still literally one vote one person.

Not in the Electoral college.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, it's still literally one vote one person.

Not in the Electoral college.

Even in the electoral college it's one vote one person.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

No, it's still literally one vote one person.

Not in the Electoral college.

+1

Although I was talking about the house of Representatives.

I'm confused as to how someone thinks

900,000 people = 1 representative in high population states

400,000 people = 1 representative in low population states

Is equel representation. The people in high population states clearly have less representation per capita much to their detriment. As per the topic "Should rural votes be weighted against Urban votes" I reiterate that they already are. At least on a federal level.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not in the Electoral college.

+1

Although I was talking about the house of Representatives.

I'm confused as to how someone thinks

900,000 people = 1 representative in high population states

400,000 people = 1 representative in low population states

Is equel representation. The people in high population states clearly have less representation per capita much to their detriment. As per the topic "Should rural votes be weighted against Urban votes" I reiterate that they already are. At least on a federal level.

You can't have half a representative.

Are you suggesting small states should not have any representation?

[Tekeristan]

Not in the Electoral college.

Even in the electoral college it's one vote one person.

One vote per person, yes, but depending on where you're from, that vote can carry a lot more or a lot less weight compared to votes from other areas.

[Tekeristan]

+1

Although I was talking about the house of Representatives.

I'm confused as to how someone thinks

900,000 people = 1 representative in high population states

400,000 people = 1 representative in low population states

Is equel representation. The people in high population states clearly have less representation per capita much to their detriment. As per the topic "Should rural votes be weighted against Urban votes" I reiterate that they already are. At least on a federal level.

You can't have half a representative.

Are you suggesting small states should not have any representation?

A lot of people don't fundamentally know where the electoral college comes from, nor know of the Great Compromise, which was so great that it became known as the Great Compromise, between the first states of Union. It was a compromise of power sharing between big states and small states, as it's about the same things we're looking at now. How do the small ones remain relevant?

Of course, I think I'm largely talking about more state-wide stuff than the national wide electoral college, since this is a discussion around rural vote vs urban vote in terms of weight, and not one about the electoral college.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Even in the electoral college it's one vote one person.

One vote per person, yes, but depending on where you're from, that vote can carry a lot more or a lot less weight compared to votes from other areas.

It carries the same amount of weight across the board.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You can't have half a representative.

Are you suggesting small states should not have any representation?

A lot of people don't fundamentally know where the electoral college comes from, nor know of the Great Compromise, which was so great that it became known as the Great Compromise, between the first states of Union. It was a compromise of power sharing between big states and small states, as it's about the same things we're looking at now. How do the small ones remain relevant?

Of course, I think I'm largely talking about more state-wide stuff than the national wide electoral college, since this is a discussion around rural vote vs urban vote in terms of weight, and not one about the electoral college.

Great compromise: great idea. Keeps the little folk relevant.

[Tekeristan]

One vote per person, yes, but depending on where you're from, that vote can carry a lot more or a lot less weight compared to votes from other areas.

It carries the same amount of weight across the board.

Then I'm afraid you're misinformed. 1 vote from Montana does not carry the same weight as 1 from California, not on the national scale. It's population PER electoral vote.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tates.html

All states come with 2 votes - Their senators, this comes irregardless of size. The rest of their votes come from population.

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age, too, so it mixes inside the smaller states and larger states.
Furthermore, the allowed number of people inside the house of representatives have been capped, so it basically defeats the whole point - big states have to split their static number of represenatives up with greater amounts of people.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Furthermore, the allowed number of people inside the house of representatives have been capped, so it basically defeats the whole point - big states have to split their static number of represenatives up with greater amounts of people.

For good reason imo. Could you imagine trying to get Congress to work if we had a thousand reps or something?

[Helensburgh]

For as long as the two groups have to share political power, yes. They don't and can't each have their own government in the current system.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Small states matter due to the Senate.

The idea of "half a representative" sounds silly however this could be changed so that either the cap of 435 Representatives is lifted or the voting in the house gets weighted by constituents.

Regardless the current system goes against the great compromise. It favors the few over the many in the one body of government that was designed to favor the majority.

[Tekeristan]

Furthermore, the allowed number of people inside the house of representatives have been capped, so it basically defeats the whole point - big states have to split their static number of represenatives up with greater amounts of people.

For good reason imo. Could you imagine trying to get Congress to work if we had a thousand reps or something?

Honestly? Yea, it's a bit crazy to imagine. But I suppose it depends on if we stay with the method of having a thousand people in a room shouting at each other.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It carries the same amount of weight across the board.

Then I'm afraid you're misinformed. 1 vote from Montana does not carry the same weight as 1 from California, not on the national scale.

Good thing we don't have a popular vote on the national scale.

It's population PER electoral vote.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tates.html

All states come with 2 votes - Their senators, this comes irregardless of size. The rest of their votes come from population.

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age, too, so it mixes inside the smaller states and larger states.
Furthermore, the allowed number of people inside the house of representatives have been capped, so it basically defeats the whole point - big states have to split their static number of represenatives up with greater amounts of people.

Big states also have more electoral votes than small states, so what's the issue?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

For good reason imo. Could you imagine trying to get Congress to work if we had a thousand reps or something?

Honestly? Yea, it's a bit crazy to imagine. But I suppose it depends on if we stay with the method of having a thousand people in a room shouting at each other.

Unless we transcend our chromosomes there's not really anything that can be done.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Big states also have more electoral votes than small states, so what's the issue?

Per capita, we've been over this like three times now. So what are you not understanding?

[Tekeristan]

Honestly? Yea, it's a bit crazy to imagine. But I suppose it depends on if we stay with the method of having a thousand people in a room shouting at each other.

Unless we transcend our chromosomes there's not really anything that can be done.

Tap tap, computers? Separated meetings? I doubt it's a unique issue that hasn't been addressed in the world, but I'm not looking through it right now.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Big states also have more electoral votes than small states, so what's the issue?

Per capita, we've been over this like three times now. So what are you not understanding?

It's perfectly fair, what are you not understanding?

Unless we transcend our chromosomes there's not really anything that can be done.

Tap tap, computers?

Ever seen a popular Twitch stream comments section? Imagine that for Congress.

Separated meetings?.

That defeats the purpose of a Congress, which is for legislators to meet up in one big group.

[San Lumen]

For those touting proportional representation as the savior let’s continue to use Nevada as the example. 3/4 of the population of the state is in Clark County so therefore they will continue to decide the legislature every time so what changes from the current system?

To use another extreme example Delaware only has three counties therefore the state senate ought to compromised of six people? New castle county comprises just under sixty percent of the state’s population so how are they being fairly represented in a legislative body of only six people?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

For those touting proportional representation as the savior let’s continue to use Nevada as the example. 3/4 of the population of the state is in Clark County so therefore they will continue to decide the legislature every time so what changes from the current system?

To use another extreme example Delaware only has three counties therefore the state senate ought to compromised of six people? New castle county comprises just under sixty percent of the state’s population so how are they being fairly represented in a legislative body of only six people?

Holy shit you're persistent with this analogy. You're kinda like Xerographica in this case.

[San Lumen]

For those touting proportional representation as the savior let’s continue to use Nevada as the example. 3/4 of the population of the state is in Clark County so therefore they will continue to decide the legislature every time so what changes from the current system?

To use another extreme example Delaware only has three counties therefore the state senate ought to compromised of six people? New castle county comprises just under sixty percent of the state’s population so how are they being fairly represented in a legislative body of only six people?

Holy shit you're persistent with this analogy. You're kinda like Xerographica in this case.

Because they are excellent examples of why both of the commonly cited solutions wouldn’t work

[Tekeristan]

Per capita, we've been over this like three times now. So what are you not understanding?

It's perfectly fair, what are you not understanding?

Tap tap, computers?

Ever seen a popular Twitch stream comments section? Imagine that for Congress.

Separated meetings?.

That defeats the purpose of a Congress, which is for legislators to meet up in one big group.

I imagine 'shitposting' kek and kappa holds a bit more consequence in the real world.

They already hold many small meetings and have many small committees and groups.

[Washington Resistance Army]

For those touting proportional representation as the savior let’s continue to use Nevada as the example. 3/4 of the population of the state is in Clark County so therefore they will continue to decide the legislature every time so what changes from the current system?

To use another extreme example Delaware only has three counties therefore the state senate ought to compromised of six people? New castle county comprises just under sixty percent of the state’s population so how are they being fairly represented in a legislative body of only six people?

They'd control 60% of the house of reps.