Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[United Muscovite Nations]

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?

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

[Kernen]

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?

Limited state government and a strong local government is a good approach.

[San Lumen]

So just have local government and no state government?

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

Well that is never going to happen

[United Muscovite Nations]

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

Well that is never going to happen

It was pretty much the status quo in Europe until the 1400's.

[San Lumen]

Well that is never going to happen

It was pretty much the status quo in Europe until the 1400's.

well this isnt the 1400s

[United Muscovite Nations]

It was pretty much the status quo in Europe until the 1400's.

well this isnt the 1400s

>tfw it is the current year
It is a bad feel.

[Benjabobaria]

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?

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.

[Kernen]

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.

The Senate was created specifically to be less beholden to popular whim and provide an institutionalized stabilizing effect to counter the populist House. That should absolutely not happen.

[Telconi]

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?

Because their decisions would represent the majority of the counties?

[San Lumen]

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?

But not a majority of the people

[Telconi]

Because their decisions would represent the majority of the counties?

But not a majority of the people

That's right.

[San Lumen]

But not a majority of the people

That's right.

And why is that fair or democratic?

[The Two Jerseys]

Because their decisions would represent the majority of the counties?

But not a majority of the people

That's what the lower house exists for.

[San Lumen]

But not a majority of the people

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]

That's right.

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.

[Telconi]

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?

Yes, that's the point.

[San Lumen]

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.

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

[United Muscovite Nations]

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?

Let me explain this again since you don't seem to get it:

The House of Representatives represents the majority, the Senate represents minority interests and exists so that the majority can't oppress the minority. The latter has less power than the former, but can reject legislation.

[The Two Jerseys]

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?

Yes. The upper house exists to prevent the populated urban areas from fucking over the rural areas.

[Telconi]

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?

The can't.

[The Two Jerseys]

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?

Because one house of a bicameral legislature can't make laws by itself.

This is remedial level civics.

[San Lumen]

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

The can't.

So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

[United Muscovite Nations]

The can't.

So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

No, they can't make laws. A single house cannot make laws.

[Telconi]

The can't.

So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

No government represents everyone.

[San Lumen]

So how can they claim to have any legitimacy?

No government represents everyone.

But its designed to represent as many people as possible not a select few.