Weighting Rural Votes?/Election Reform

[Telconi]

This is as wrong now as the first time you've said it. If you can't understand the functional difference between "people disagreeing with you" and "People forcing you to act on their disagreement" then that's on you.

To elect government officials. Or, y'know, we could be reasonable people. Totally unfair government gets passed all the time, you yourself gloat about it.

What do you mean by forced? Do you understand the concept of law? Congress and the legislature was elected to do a job and with a agenda. You dont get to opt out of the laws they pass because you didnt vote for the party in charge.

And are reasonable people only those who agree with you?

You do understand laws are enforced right? Yes, and that agenda or at least parts of it, are disgusting, vile, and repulsive. There are laws that should not be passed, when passed, unjust laws should absolutely, be defied.

Do you believe only those who agree with you are reasonable? Do you believe unreasonable people exist?

[San Lumen]

What do you mean by forced? Do you understand the concept of law? Congress and the legislature was elected to do a job and with a agenda. You dont get to opt out of the laws they pass because you didnt vote for the party in charge.

And are reasonable people only those who agree with you?

You do understand laws are enforced right? Yes, and that agenda or at least parts of it, are disgusting, vile, and repulsive. There are laws that should not be passed, when passed, unjust laws should absolutely, be defied.

Do you believe only those who agree with you are reasonable? Do you believe unreasonable people exist?

Yes because that is how a stable government functions. It enforces the law. The people passing the laws you dont like were elected to pass those laws.

Have there been awful laws in the past? Absolutely. People remedied them via peaceful protests and the courts. If you dont like a law that's been passed their is something called a court presided over by a someone called a judge.

I never said those who disagree with me are unreasonable but you seem to be of the notion that anyone who has the audacity to vote the other way from how you do is a terrible unreasonable person.

[Telconi]

You do understand laws are enforced right? Yes, and that agenda or at least parts of it, are disgusting, vile, and repulsive. There are laws that should not be passed, when passed, unjust laws should absolutely, be defied.

Do you believe only those who agree with you are reasonable? Do you believe unreasonable people exist?

Yes because that is how a stable government functions. It enforces the law. The people passing the laws you dont like were elected to pass those laws.

Have there been awful laws in the past? Absolutely. People remedied them via peaceful protests and the courts. If you dont like a law that's been passed their is something called a court presided over by a someone called a judge.

I never said those who disagree with me are unreasonable but you seem to be of the notion that anyone who has the audacity to vote the other way from how you do is a terrible unreasonable person.

Stability is irrelevant. The purpose of the people passing these laws is irrelevant.

People have also remedied them via violence.

People who vote for terrible policies are terrible, you have acknowledged this yourself.

[San Lumen]

Yes because that is how a stable government functions. It enforces the law. The people passing the laws you dont like were elected to pass those laws.

Have there been awful laws in the past? Absolutely. People remedied them via peaceful protests and the courts. If you dont like a law that's been passed their is something called a court presided over by a someone called a judge.

I never said those who disagree with me are unreasonable but you seem to be of the notion that anyone who has the audacity to vote the other way from how you do is a terrible unreasonable person.

Stability is irrelevant. The purpose of the people passing these laws is irrelevant.

People have also remedied them via violence.

People who vote for terrible policies are terrible, you have acknowledged this yourself.

Yeah how dare the majority vote for people they want. How awful someone in the Bay Area or Los Angeles has a different viewpoint then you and votes for someone that represents their values.

What kind of violence are you talking?

And what is terrible to you is not to the majority of the state and to those who voted for non Republican governors last year and for a Democratic congress.

[Telconi]

Stability is irrelevant. The purpose of the people passing these laws is irrelevant.

People have also remedied them via violence.

People who vote for terrible policies are terrible, you have acknowledged this yourself.

Yeah how dare the majority vote for people they want. How awful someone in the Bay Area or Los Angeles has a different viewpoint then you and votes for someone that represents their values.

What kind of violence are you talking?

And what is terrible to you is not to the majority of the state and to those who voted for non Republican governors last year and for a Democratic congress.

If the viewpoint is awful, and they vote for a representative to represent their awful views, then yes.

The war kind... We didn't sue the Nazis because they had awful laws, or the Confederate States, or the Japanese, we killed them en masse until they stopped.

Rape isn't terrible to the majority of rapists, so what?

[San Lumen]

Yeah how dare the majority vote for people they want. How awful someone in the Bay Area or Los Angeles has a different viewpoint then you and votes for someone that represents their values.

What kind of violence are you talking?

And what is terrible to you is not to the majority of the state and to those who voted for non Republican governors last year and for a Democratic congress.

If the viewpoint is awful, and they vote for a representative to represent their awful views, then yes.

The war kind... We didn't sue the Nazis because they had awful laws, or the Confederate States, or the Japanese, we killed them en masse until they stopped.

Rape isn't terrible to the majority of rapists, so what?

Therefore they should not vote or not be able to vote for the person they want?

There isn;'t going to be a civil war if that's what your hinting at.

Bad analogy. Please try again with a better one

[Telconi]

If the viewpoint is awful, and they vote for a representative to represent their awful views, then yes.

The war kind... We didn't sue the Nazis because they had awful laws, or the Confederate States, or the Japanese, we killed them en masse until they stopped.

Rape isn't terrible to the majority of rapists, so what?

Therefore they should not vote or not be able to vote for the person they want?

There isn;'t going to be a civil war if that's what your hinting at.

Bad analogy. Please try again with a better one

They should be restricted from enacting their terrible policy ideas.

Perhaps, perhaps not, time will tell.

Perfect analogy, the people who do horrible things don't see their actions as horrible. That doesn't mean everyone should excuse such actions.

[San Lumen]

Therefore they should not vote or not be able to vote for the person they want?

There isn;'t going to be a civil war if that's what your hinting at.

Bad analogy. Please try again with a better one

They should be restricted from enacting their terrible policy ideas.

Perhaps, perhaps not, time will tell.

Perfect analogy, the people who do horrible things don't see their actions as horrible. That doesn't mean everyone should excuse such actions.

Only your side should be able to make law then and if the people have the audacity to vote in the other side the government is unable to get anything done? Sounds like a de facto dictatorship.

Should the legislature of Wisconsin block every single nominee of Tony Evers in Wisconsin because the people had had the nerve to vote out Scott Walker?

[Telconi]

They should be restricted from enacting their terrible policy ideas.

Perhaps, perhaps not, time will tell.

Perfect analogy, the people who do horrible things don't see their actions as horrible. That doesn't mean everyone should excuse such actions.

Only your side should be able to make law then and if the people have the audacity to vote in the other side the government is unable to get anything done? Sounds like a de facto dictatorship.

Should the legislature of Wisconsin block every single nominee of Tony Evers in Wisconsin because the people had had the nerve to vote out Scott Walker?

Like how it's a de-facto dictatorship to not enslave black folks? Oh come on, if you think a government which respects human rights "can't get anything done" then that's awful.

If Tony Evers supports horrific policies, then yes.

[San Lumen]

Only your side should be able to make law then and if the people have the audacity to vote in the other side the government is unable to get anything done? Sounds like a de facto dictatorship.

Should the legislature of Wisconsin block every single nominee of Tony Evers in Wisconsin because the people had had the nerve to vote out Scott Walker?

Like how it's a de-facto dictatorship to not enslave black folks? Oh come on, if you think a government which respects human rights "can't get anything done" then that's awful.

If Tony Evers supports horrific policies, then yes.

Sorry what are you talking about?

They were not horrific policies to the people who voted for him. In other words the people of Wisconsin should be punished for ousting the incumbent by rendering the government totally gridlocked and unable to function?

Let’s bring this down to level perhaps you can understand. Let’s have an election for sheriff

A democrat is elected sheriff by a substantial but not overwhelming margin. The rank and file officers of the department who are mostly republican decide they are not going to follow the policy of nor listen to the gentlemen or women elected sheriff thereby spitting in the face of the people they serve.

Such action would not only be insubordinate put potentially harmful to the county. Now do
You understand how ridiculous and absurd your position is?

[Telconi]

Like how it's a de-facto dictatorship to not enslave black folks? Oh come on, if you think a government which respects human rights "can't get anything done" then that's awful.

If Tony Evers supports horrific policies, then yes.

Sorry what are you talking about?

They were not horrific policies to the people who voted for him. In other words the people of Wisconsin should be punished for ousting the incumbent by rendering the government totally gridlocked and unable to function?

Let’s bring this down to level perhaps you can understand. Let’s have an election for sheriff

A democrat is elected sheriff by a substantial but not overwhelming margin. The rank and file officers of the department who are mostly republican decide they are not going to follow the policy of nor listen to the gentlemen or women elected sheriff thereby spitting in the face of the people they serve.

Such action would not only be insubordinate put potentially harmful to the county. Now do
You understand how ridiculous and absurd your position is?

Is the sheriff a monster?

[San Lumen]

Sorry what are you talking about?

They were not horrific policies to the people who voted for him. In other words the people of Wisconsin should be punished for ousting the incumbent by rendering the government totally gridlocked and unable to function?

Let’s bring this down to level perhaps you can understand. Let’s have an election for sheriff

A democrat is elected sheriff by a substantial but not overwhelming margin. The rank and file officers of the department who are mostly republican decide they are not going to follow the policy of nor listen to the gentlemen or women elected sheriff thereby spitting in the face of the people they serve.

Such action would not only be insubordinate put potentially harmful to the county. Now do
You understand how ridiculous and absurd your position is?

Is the sheriff a monster?

Answer the question instead of dodging with ridiculous statements

[Telconi]

Is the sheriff a monster?

Answer the question instead of dodging with ridiculous statements

Well that's sort of the deciding factor isn't it? Without knowing this, how could I answer?

[San Lumen]

Answer the question instead of dodging with ridiculous statements

Well that's sort of the deciding factor isn't it? Without knowing this, how could I answer?

I don’t know what your ridiculous comment means.

This hypothetical sheriff was elected in a free and fair election by the people of the county and the rank and file officers decide they will neither listen to nor abide by the policies of the person the people chose.

You don’t see that as a problem?

[The Black Forrest]

Well that's sort of the deciding factor isn't it? Without knowing this, how could I answer?

I don’t know what your ridiculous comment means.

This hypothetical sheriff was elected in a free and fair election by the people of the county and the rank and file officers decide they will neither listen to nor abide by the policies of the person the people chose.

You don’t see that as a problem?

Mrs. Telconi? Is that you?

[Telconi]

Well that's sort of the deciding factor isn't it? Without knowing this, how could I answer?

I don’t know what your ridiculous comment means.

This hypothetical sheriff was elected in a free and fair election by the people of the county and the rank and file officers decide they will neither listen to nor abide by the policies of the person the people chose.

You don’t see that as a problem?

That would depend on the sheriff, if he ordered his deputies to flog all the black people for being escaped slaves, obedience would be a problem.

[Telconi]

I don’t know what your ridiculous comment means.

This hypothetical sheriff was elected in a free and fair election by the people of the county and the rank and file officers decide they will neither listen to nor abide by the policies of the person the people chose.

You don’t see that as a problem?

Mrs. Telconi? Is that you?

That's rude.

[San Lumen]

I don’t know what your ridiculous comment means.

This hypothetical sheriff was elected in a free and fair election by the people of the county and the rank and file officers decide they will neither listen to nor abide by the policies of the person the people chose.

You don’t see that as a problem?

That would depend on the sheriff, if he ordered his deputies to flog all the black people for being escaped slaves, obedience would be a problem.

We don’t have slavery anymore so can you stop stalling and answer the question

[Doing it Rightland]

Hey, you two, come on. We should be trying to have a civil discussion on this issue, and if neither of you can stay calm, we're not gonna get anywhere. Now, to repeat what I stated earlier:

I don't think it's a requirement to eliminate or restrict the majority's capacity to govern. That tends to detach governance from the popular will, which is also bad. In fact, it's not actually pertinent to the proposal that we eliminate the majority. The proposal is geared at getting the majority in a certain region to being the people who actually understand the region. What is needed is for people who understand their local issues to handle them, and people who don't to take a more backseat role in those issues. Let's take an example state, with districts of equal population:

State-istan (I'm not good at names)
Farmlandia: Rural County
Wyoming 2: Rural County
City-opolis: Urban County

Here we see that rural people have a majority. Under current circumstances in the US, they would be able to advance their own interests, generally neglecting or mishandling issues of the urban people. Under the proposal, each county takes care of itself, only cooperating on issues that span more than one county. Here, the state's majority doesn't abuse power (purposefully or accidentally) because the state isn't the body with power. Each county now has its own majority and minority, but they are specific to the rural or urban settings. Thus, the majority/minority can more easily handle its issues without having to worry about sway from people who aren't immediately impacted by or knowledgeable of the situation. Ergo, the majority doesn't abuse the minority, but the majority isn't stopped from executing its goals for the areas it controls.

[San Lumen]

Hey, you two, come on. We should be trying to have a civil discussion on this issue, and if neither of you can stay calm, we're not gonna get anywhere. Now, to repeat what I stated earlier:

I don't think it's a requirement to eliminate or restrict the majority's capacity to govern. That tends to detach governance from the popular will, which is also bad. In fact, it's not actually pertinent to the proposal that we eliminate the majority. The proposal is geared at getting the majority in a certain region to being the people who actually understand the region. What is needed is for people who understand their local issues to handle them, and people who don't to take a more backseat role in those issues. Let's take an example state, with districts of equal population:

State-istan (I'm not good at names)
Farmlandia: Rural County
Wyoming 2: Rural County
City-opolis: Urban County

Here we see that rural people have a majority. Under current circumstances in the US, they would be able to advance their own interests, generally neglecting or mishandling issues of the urban people. Under the proposal, each county takes care of itself, only cooperating on issues that span more than one county. Here, the state's majority doesn't abuse power (purposefully or accidentally) because the state isn't the body with power. Each county now has its own majority and minority, but they are specific to the rural or urban settings. Thus, the majority/minority can more easily handle its issues without having to worry about sway from people who aren't immediately impacted by or knowledgeable of the situation. Ergo, the majority doesn't abuse the minority, but the majority isn't stopped from executing its goals for the areas it controls.

While your intentions are good you are leaving out that many things are not local
Issues. Healthcare, labor law, elections, agriculture are state run affairs. You can’t have a patchwork of laws across the state except in very specific circumstances

[Thermodolia]

Hey, you two, come on. We should be trying to have a civil discussion on this issue, and if neither of you can stay calm, we're not gonna get anywhere. Now, to repeat what I stated earlier:

While your intentions are good you are leaving out that many things are not local
Issues. Healthcare, labor law, elections, agriculture are state run affairs. You can’t have a patchwork of laws across the state except in very specific circumstances

Healthcare and labor laws span the state and are therefore state issues, elections are already handled by the county, agriculture makes more sense to be devolved to rural counties. I’m going to guess you hate federalism? Because we currently have a patchwork of laws in the US.

[San Lumen]

While your intentions are good you are leaving out that many things are not local
Issues. Healthcare, labor law, elections, agriculture are state run affairs. You can’t have a patchwork of laws across the state except in very specific circumstances

Healthcare and labor laws span the state and are therefore state issues, elections are already handled by the county, agriculture makes more sense to be devolved to rural counties. I’m going to guess you hate federalism? Because we currently have a patchwork of laws in the US.

The county board of elections answers to the state board of elections. Some issues are local some are not.

Unless you want another Dust Bowl you need some sort of uniform agriculture law.

[Telconi]

Hey, you two, come on. We should be trying to have a civil discussion on this issue, and if neither of you can stay calm, we're not gonna get anywhere. Now, to repeat what I stated earlier:

I don't think it's a requirement to eliminate or restrict the majority's capacity to govern. That tends to detach governance from the popular will, which is also bad. In fact, it's not actually pertinent to the proposal that we eliminate the majority. The proposal is geared at getting the majority in a certain region to being the people who actually understand the region. What is needed is for people who understand their local issues to handle them, and people who don't to take a more backseat role in those issues. Let's take an example state, with districts of equal population:

State-istan (I'm not good at names)
Farmlandia: Rural County
Wyoming 2: Rural County
City-opolis: Urban County

Here we see that rural people have a majority. Under current circumstances in the US, they would be able to advance their own interests, generally neglecting or mishandling issues of the urban people. Under the proposal, each county takes care of itself, only cooperating on issues that span more than one county. Here, the state's majority doesn't abuse power (purposefully or accidentally) because the state isn't the body with power. Each county now has its own majority and minority, but they are specific to the rural or urban settings. Thus, the majority/minority can more easily handle its issues without having to worry about sway from people who aren't immediately impacted by or knowledgeable of the situation. Ergo, the majority doesn't abuse the minority, but the majority isn't stopped from executing its goals for the areas it controls.

It is absolutely necessary to restrict the majority's capacity to govern. Hence why we've been doing it since the beginning of the country.

[Telconi]

That would depend on the sheriff, if he ordered his deputies to flog all the black people for being escaped slaves, obedience would be a problem.

We don’t have slavery anymore so can you stop stalling and answer the question

"Your question is functionally incomplete" is not stalling.

[Doing it Rightland]

Unless you want another Dust Bowl you need some sort of uniform agriculture law.

May I remind you that the USDA (a body of centralized agricultural law/policy) was around well before and during the Dust Bowl. It doesn't matter if the laws are uniform or not so long as people aren't idiots when it comes to running their farms. Education would have been the best fix because it would have significantly reduced, if not outright prevented, the Dust Bowl, and education can be divided to local areas to maximize the amount of pertinent information (local soil type, rainfall, etc) given to farmers.