by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:45 pm
by Novus Wrepland » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:52 pm
by Diopolis » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:53 pm
by Nordengrund » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:01 pm
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:01 pm
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.
by Kernen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:02 pm
Novus Wrepland wrote:We should just switch to a proportional representation parliamentary model with a full ban on assault weapons on the state level.
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:04 pm
Kernen wrote:Novus Wrepland wrote:We should just switch to a proportional representation parliamentary model with a full ban on assault weapons on the state level.
Alternatively, you can leave us law abiding owners alone, since the overwhelming majority of those weapons commit no crimes.
The advantage to a system which weights rural votes more is that it doesn't disenfranchise organizations that, by definition, require low population density. Farmer and rancher interests are significantly harmed when individuals in an urban area, who have little understanding or inclination to support many of those interests, are in control. That is one reason that so many rural voters feel increasingly politically abandoned by politicians who otherwise may represent their interests.
A pure OPOV model would work better in a more decentralized form of government, not unlike New Hampshire, where local governments are given broad latitude to self-govern, and the state legislature tends to reserve itself to measures best dealt with on a state level. My experience in New York suggests this is not the case.
There's also the question of whether you believe that a state legislature elected primarily by somebody with a different demographic than yourself would adequately represent your interests. If I lived in New York's rural areas, I would not trust NYC representatives to protect my interests.
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:04 pm
Kernen wrote:Novus Wrepland wrote:We should just switch to a proportional representation parliamentary model with a full ban on assault weapons on the state level.
Alternatively, you can leave us law abiding owners alone, since the overwhelming majority of those weapons commit no crimes.
The advantage to a system which weights rural votes more is that it doesn't disenfranchise organizations that, by definition, require low population density. Farmer and rancher interests are significantly harmed when individuals in an urban area, who have little understanding or inclination to support many of those interests, are in control. That is one reason that so many rural voters feel increasingly politically abandoned by politicians who otherwise may represent their interests.
A pure OPOV model would work better in a more decentralized form of government, not unlike New Hampshire, where local governments are given broad latitude to self-govern, and the state legislature tends to reserve itself to measures best dealt with on a state level. My experience in New York suggests this is not the case.
There's also the question of whether you believe that a state legislature elected primarily by somebody with a different demographic than yourself would adequately represent your interests. If I lived in New York's rural areas, I would not trust NYC representatives to protect my interests.
by San Carlos Islands » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:04 pm
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.
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:05 pm
by San Carlos Islands » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:06 pm
by Ostroeuropa » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:06 pm
San Lumen wrote:Kernen wrote:Alternatively, you can leave us law abiding owners alone, since the overwhelming majority of those weapons commit no crimes.
The advantage to a system which weights rural votes more is that it doesn't disenfranchise organizations that, by definition, require low population density. Farmer and rancher interests are significantly harmed when individuals in an urban area, who have little understanding or inclination to support many of those interests, are in control. That is one reason that so many rural voters feel increasingly politically abandoned by politicians who otherwise may represent their interests.
A pure OPOV model would work better in a more decentralized form of government, not unlike New Hampshire, where local governments are given broad latitude to self-govern, and the state legislature tends to reserve itself to measures best dealt with on a state level. My experience in New York suggests this is not the case.
There's also the question of whether you believe that a state legislature elected primarily by somebody with a different demographic than yourself would adequately represent your interests. If I lived in New York's rural areas, I would not trust NYC representatives to protect my interests.
And those urban people are entitled to representation just like a farmer or rancher is. If a area has more people it gets more representation. Its quite a simple concept.
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:10 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Upper houses aren't meant to represent the majority of people, they are meant to represent minority interests.
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:11 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:San Lumen wrote:
And those urban people are entitled to representation just like a farmer or rancher is. If a area has more people it gets more representation. Its quite a simple concept.
How purist are you taking this?
Because despite what I just said, even the constituency system has outliers, with some Mps representing only 13,000 voters because of the geographic isolation of the constituency like the Island constituencies (to avoid the impracticality of having a constituency be a bunch of Islands and some of the Mainland, with their vastly differing interests and issues). The overwhelming majority represent about 50,000 though, and those exceptions are few and far between.
You will never get a system that adequately represents people equally, only a rough approximation.
by San Carlos Islands » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:11 pm
Ostroeuropa wrote:San Lumen wrote:
And those urban people are entitled to representation just like a farmer or rancher is. If a area has more people it gets more representation. Its quite a simple concept.
How purist are you taking this?
Because despite what I just said, even the constituency system has outliers, with some Mps representing only 13,000 voters because of the geographic isolation of the constituency like the Island constituencies (to avoid the impracticality of having a constituency be a bunch of Islands and some of the Mainland, with their vastly differing interests and issues). The overwhelming majority represent about 50,000 though, and those exceptions are few and far between.
You will never get a system that adequately represents people equally, only a rough approximation.
by Kernen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:11 pm
San Lumen wrote:Kernen wrote:Alternatively, you can leave us law abiding owners alone, since the overwhelming majority of those weapons commit no crimes.
The advantage to a system which weights rural votes more is that it doesn't disenfranchise organizations that, by definition, require low population density. Farmer and rancher interests are significantly harmed when individuals in an urban area, who have little understanding or inclination to support many of those interests, are in control. That is one reason that so many rural voters feel increasingly politically abandoned by politicians who otherwise may represent their interests.
A pure OPOV model would work better in a more decentralized form of government, not unlike New Hampshire, where local governments are given broad latitude to self-govern, and the state legislature tends to reserve itself to measures best dealt with on a state level. My experience in New York suggests this is not the case.
There's also the question of whether you believe that a state legislature elected primarily by somebody with a different demographic than yourself would adequately represent your interests. If I lived in New York's rural areas, I would not trust NYC representatives to protect my interests.
And those urban people are entitled to representation just like a farmer or rancher is. If a area has more people it gets more representation. Its quite a simple concept.
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:12 pm
San Carlos Islands wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
How purist are you taking this?
Because despite what I just said, even the constituency system has outliers, with some Mps representing only 13,000 voters because of the geographic isolation of the constituency like the Island constituencies (to avoid the impracticality of having a constituency be a bunch of Islands and some of the Mainland, with their vastly differing interests and issues). The overwhelming majority represent about 50,000 though, and those exceptions are few and far between.
You will never get a system that adequately represents people equally, only a rough approximation.
To back this up...
The Isle of Wright constituency (Largest) has 110,697 folks while the Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency (Smallest) has 21,769. I'm not a fan of that.
by Kernen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:13 pm
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?
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:13 pm
Kernen wrote:San Lumen wrote:
And those urban people are entitled to representation just like a farmer or rancher is. If a area has more people it gets more representation. Its quite a simple concept.
In any system, the dense urban population is going to have a great deal of representation. I doubt that the urbanites will ever struggle to have their voices heard, even considering the effect of increasing representation among rural populations. Again, this is irrelevant if state legislatures would permit a large degree of autonomy to local governments, like New Hampshire does. If New York operated like New Hampshire, the urbanites would self-govern the way they see fit on local issues, and the rural population would do the same, and the state legislature would not need to intervene greatly. New Hampshire is ideal like that.
The end result if you lack a minority protection is that the rural minority becomes increasingly isolated, despite controlling the majority of resources.
by San Carlos Islands » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:13 pm
San Lumen wrote:San Carlos Islands wrote:
To back this up...
The Isle of Wright constituency (Largest) has 110,697 folks while the Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency (Smallest) has 21,769. I'm not a fan of that.
No, it's bad district drawing. Why can't a bunch of small constituencies be combined as larger ones are broken up?
That is due to population variances.
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:14 pm
Kernen 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 the Senate tends to represent the state as a whole and not a narrow band of constituents. As a balance to the populist lower house. Its a balancing of interests.
by Kernen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:15 pm
San Lumen wrote:Kernen wrote:In any system, the dense urban population is going to have a great deal of representation. I doubt that the urbanites will ever struggle to have their voices heard, even considering the effect of increasing representation among rural populations. Again, this is irrelevant if state legislatures would permit a large degree of autonomy to local governments, like New Hampshire does. If New York operated like New Hampshire, the urbanites would self-govern the way they see fit on local issues, and the rural population would do the same, and the state legislature would not need to intervene greatly. New Hampshire is ideal like that.
The end result if you lack a minority protection is that the rural minority becomes increasingly isolated, despite controlling the majority of resources.
What does New Hampshire do regarding local governments? Im not familiar with it.
by Kernen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:16 pm
San Lumen wrote:Kernen wrote:Because the Senate tends to represent the state as a whole and not a narrow band of constituents. As a balance to the populist lower house. Its a balancing of interests.
And this chamber would likely never change hands and in the case of Nevada is only representing 10 percent of the population
by San Lumen » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:17 pm
Kernen wrote:San Lumen wrote:
What does New Hampshire do regarding local governments? Im not familiar with it.
New Hampshire's huge House (400 members, an average of 1 representative for every 2000 people) incentivizes local government rule, since its extremely hard to build large blocs in the state government. Planning, zoning, and nearly all taxation are handled on a local government level, usually sub-county.
The result is that the state government only really acts when the state is the only body that can effectively deal with a problem. It is not the first line of legislative defense.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Jetan, The Kharkivan Cossacks
Advertisement