Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[Telconi]

Or when they ban guns.

It doesn't matter...

Which is quite literally all you care about

Why doesn't it matter?

I care about important things, how terrible of me.

Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...

[Telconi]

Telconi cares about basic rights, go figure.

And they have also called for the peaceful transfer of power to not be respected, believe there is some mass conspiracy against them and that the majority of his state are awful people for the simply fact people have the audacity to disagree with him

Goebbels would be jealous of your capacity to wrap the truth in lies.

[San Lumen]

Which is quite literally all you care about

Why doesn't it matter?

I care about important things, how terrible of me.

Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...

Its the single thing you believe is important

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?

[Northern Davincia]

I care about important things, how terrible of me.

Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...

Its the single thing you believe is important

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?

People who lived in Africa and India long ago realized that it's better to live free than to have nice things from outside control.

[Telconi]

I care about important things, how terrible of me.

Because the road building is literally an example of things that don't matter, how you pay for the roads that don't matter doesn't matter...

Its the single thing you believe is important

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?

That's not true, and you know it, or should.

Because there are many more important things at stake than roads, if my child grows up to a world with broken pavement or potholes, it will be a far better life than if she grows up into the future you want.

[San Lumen]

Its the single thing you believe is important

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?

That's not true, and you know it, or should.

Because there are many more important things at stake than roads, if my child grows up to a world with broken pavement or potholes, it will be a far better life than if she grows up into the future you want.

Well then dont blame the state when they have a car accident because the road wasn't fixed.

What is this future I want?

[Telconi]

Its the single thing you believe is important

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

I am not following your line of thought here. Are you saying you dont care if highways fall apart?

People who lived in Africa and India long ago realized that it's better to live free than to have nice things from outside control.

But Ghandi, the British build roads!

t. a """Liberal"""

[Telconi]

That's not true, and you know it, or should.

Because there are many more important things at stake than roads, if my child grows up to a world with broken pavement or potholes, it will be a far better life than if she grows up into the future you want.

Well then dont blame the state when they have a car accident because the road wasn't fixed.

What is this future I want?

Uh, yeah...

Well it involves Gavin Newsom even remotely close enough to the levers of power to breath on them.

[San Lumen]

Well then dont blame the state when they have a car accident because the road wasn't fixed.

What is this future I want?

Uh, yeah...

Well it involves Gavin Newsom even remotely close enough to the levers of power to breath on them.

He was duly elected in a free and fair election with 62 percent of the vote but how dare anyone who disagrees with you vote

[Doing it Rightland]

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

My goal is to cut that out. I don't think having urban legislators making policies for rural areas and vice versa makes a lot of sense. Let rural counties do rural things, and urban counties do their things, but don't burden urban legislators with rural policies and vice versa unless there's a problem.

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

Yeah,it is true that rural counties tend to not have the infrastructure to effectively generate revenue. At the state level, urban taxes subsidize rural budgets. That's where what little of the state government I'd keep comes in. They collect their state taxes and distribute it out. Yeah, there we'd potentially run into some issues. However, as I see it, so long as each county submits a budget, and the total pool of state funds gets divided proportionately between the counties, everybody gets money they need.

At the federal level, the situation is actually a bit different. Most federal development funding goes to cities, so rural areas tend to not have as much funding in that sense.

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

I'm not suggesting cutting state taxes, unless of course the counties were able to tax more. Where I live, the state's main source of revenue is property and sales tax. Either the state would continue to tax that stuff, and simply divide out the funds proportionately according to each county's needs, or the counties take over taxes and handle it on their own.

And about the MTA. If the urban counties are subsidizing rural ones, then why would giving the funding power to counties cause problems. If anything, there should be more money in the cities (since less is leaving to rural communities) and thus the budget problems would be less severe if still sustained.

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

Trains. Europe and Asia do it just fine. Increase the amount of rails, put tolls on highways to raise money for this, and you have more functionality. Or the state continues to tax and pays to build it. Or the counties pay for it.

[Telconi]

Uh, yeah...

Well it involves Gavin Newsom even remotely close enough to the levers of power to breath on them.

He was duly elected in a free and fair election with 62 percent of the vote but how dare anyone who disagrees with you vote

Well I'd just prefer if they rustled up some human decency on the way to the polls.

[San Lumen]

He was duly elected in a free and fair election with 62 percent of the vote but how dare anyone who disagrees with you vote

Well I'd just prefer if they rustled up some human decency on the way to the polls.

People disagree with you and have the same right to vote as you do

[Telconi]

Well I'd just prefer if they rustled up some human decency on the way to the polls.

People disagree with you and have the same right to vote as you do

I never argued that.

[Northern Davincia]

Uh, yeah...

Well it involves Gavin Newsom even remotely close enough to the levers of power to breath on them.

He was duly elected in a free and fair election with 62 percent of the vote but how dare anyone who disagrees with you vote

Argumentum ad populum.

[San Lumen]

I was referring to this: a department that only deals with rural issues still has to enforce policies from a legislature that contains, if not dominated by, urban representatives as well

My goal is to cut that out. I don't think having urban legislators making policies for rural areas and vice versa makes a lot of sense. Let rural counties do rural things, and urban counties do their things, but don't burden urban legislators with rural policies and vice versa unless there's a problem.

Rural counties like Hamilton simply dont have enough residents to pay for what they need. What you want sounds practical but simply would not work in practice

Yeah,it is true that rural counties tend to not have the infrastructure to effectively generate revenue. At the state level, urban taxes subsidize rural budgets. That's where what little of the state government I'd keep comes in. They collect their state taxes and distribute it out. Yeah, there we'd potentially run into some issues. However, as I see it, so long as each county submits a budget, and the total pool of state funds gets divided proportionately between the counties, everybody gets money they need.

At the federal level, the situation is actually a bit different. Most federal development funding goes to cities, so rural areas tend to not have as much funding in that sense.

In my city the MTA receives funding through the state and repairs are payed for through everyones taxes in addition to fares. If you cut off the state funding the subway and commuter rail would have to pass their cost unto riders with their already exorbitant fares. The fares would be so high very few could afford it and they would go bankrupt. So what did you accomplish?

I'm not suggesting cutting state taxes, unless of course the counties were able to tax more. Where I live, the state's main source of revenue is property and sales tax. Either the state would continue to tax that stuff, and simply divide out the funds proportionately according to each county's needs, or the counties take over taxes and handle it on their own.

And about the MTA. If the urban counties are subsidizing rural ones, then why would giving the funding power to counties cause problems. If anything, there should be more money in the cities (since less is leaving to rural communities) and thus the budget problems would be less severe if still sustained.

How does road building not matter? If state highways crumble how can the trucking industry function?

Trains. Europe and Asia do it just fine. Increase the amount of rails, put tolls on highways to raise money for this, and you have more functionality. Or the state continues to tax and pays to build it. Or the counties pay for it.

You clearly do not understand how budgets work. A lawmaker from a rural county advocates for what they need and the same goes for one from a urban area. The budget is put together with input from everyone. Dividing funds out based on need is whats already done.

Plus you can't simply have all the counties just raise taxes. In some rural counties its simply not feasible.

People disagree with you and have the same right to vote as you do

I never argued that.

You have called the majority of your state terrible people for voting opposite to you

[Telconi]

My goal is to cut that out. I don't think having urban legislators making policies for rural areas and vice versa makes a lot of sense. Let rural counties do rural things, and urban counties do their things, but don't burden urban legislators with rural policies and vice versa unless there's a problem.


Yeah,it is true that rural counties tend to not have the infrastructure to effectively generate revenue. At the state level, urban taxes subsidize rural budgets. That's where what little of the state government I'd keep comes in. They collect their state taxes and distribute it out. Yeah, there we'd potentially run into some issues. However, as I see it, so long as each county submits a budget, and the total pool of state funds gets divided proportionately between the counties, everybody gets money they need.

At the federal level, the situation is actually a bit different. Most federal development funding goes to cities, so rural areas tend to not have as much funding in that sense.


I'm not suggesting cutting state taxes, unless of course the counties were able to tax more. Where I live, the state's main source of revenue is property and sales tax. Either the state would continue to tax that stuff, and simply divide out the funds proportionately according to each county's needs, or the counties take over taxes and handle it on their own.

And about the MTA. If the urban counties are subsidizing rural ones, then why would giving the funding power to counties cause problems. If anything, there should be more money in the cities (since less is leaving to rural communities) and thus the budget problems would be less severe if still sustained.


Trains. Europe and Asia do it just fine. Increase the amount of rails, put tolls on highways to raise money for this, and you have more functionality. Or the state continues to tax and pays to build it. Or the counties pay for it.

You clearly do not understand how budgets work. A lawmaker from a rural county advocates for what they need and the same goes for one from a urban area. The budget is put together with input from everyone. Dividing funds out based on need is whats already done.

Plus you can't simply have all the counties just raise taxes. In some rural counties its simply not feasible.

I never argued that.

You have called the majority of your state terrible people for voting opposite to you

Just because someone has the right to vote, doesn't mean their use of that right is respectable.

[San Lumen]

You clearly do not understand how budgets work. A lawmaker from a rural county advocates for what they need and the same goes for one from a urban area. The budget is put together with input from everyone. Dividing funds out based on need is whats already done.

Plus you can't simply have all the counties just raise taxes. In some rural counties its simply not feasible.

You have called the majority of your state terrible people for voting opposite to you

Just because someone has the right to vote, doesn't mean their use of that right is respectable.

Why because they dont vote how you like?

[Ors Might]

Just because someone has the right to vote, doesn't mean their use of that right is respectable.

Why because they dont vote how you like?

If one believes they’re voting in favor of rights, why would they respect those that vote the opposite of them?

[San Lumen]

Why because they dont vote how you like?

If one believes they’re voting in favor of rights, why would they respect those that vote the opposite of them?

Because everyone has a right to vote regardless of their zip code

[Ors Might]

If one believes they’re voting in favor of rights, why would they respect those that vote the opposite of them?

Because everyone has a right to vote regardless of their zip code

And that means you have to respect how they use that right?

[Telconi]

Just because someone has the right to vote, doesn't mean their use of that right is respectable.

Why because they dont vote how you like?

If we're boiling the entirety of human ideology down to the binary classification of "What Telconi likes" then sure...

[San Lumen]

Because everyone has a right to vote regardless of their zip code

And that means you have to respect how they use that right?

Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.

Why because they dont vote how you like?

If we're boiling the entirety of human ideology down to the binary classification of "What Telconi likes" then sure...

And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.

[Ors Might]

And that means you have to respect how they use that right?

Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.

If we're boiling the entirety of human ideology down to the binary classification of "What Telconi likes" then sure...

And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.

If someone votes for a fucking Nazi, I have zero respect for their vote. They have every right to cast that vote but the person themselves can get bent.

[Telconi]

And that means you have to respect how they use that right?

Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.

If we're boiling the entirety of human ideology down to the binary classification of "What Telconi likes" then sure...

And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.

Literally in one post, you defend the idea that everyone's beliefs deserve respect, and then state that my alleged beliefs (which aren't actually my beliefs) are stupid.

Perhaps you could at least pretend to have some level of consistency...

[Telconi]

Yes it does. Someone in San Francisco has equal right to vote as someone in Telconi's town does.

And that is a stupid argument. Why should the minority decide who your executive is? You had an election your candidate lost.

If someone votes for a fucking Nazi, I have zero respect for their vote. They have every right to cast that vote but the person themselves can get bent.

BeCaUsE tHeY dIsAgReE wItH yOu?