bernyzilla t1_j1jglcw wrote on December 24, 2022 at 9:15 PM

Reply to comment by Lost_Sasquatch in A population density map of Washington by Pecners

But why should the status of "living in a rural area" allow one to get more votes, at any level?

Why is landmass the one area where we allow this?

Women are disproportionately represented in government, so are black people, young people, etc. Should they get extra votes?

If living in Wyoming gets one 3 votes to every .8 California vote, why doesn't being from Laos get you 4.5 votes? That underrepresentation certainly drives the culture divide between white America and Asian America.

The only way to do it is one vote for one person. The electoral college, gerrymandering, and any other scheme that allows one group to disproportionate voting power should be abolished.

Currently rural populations have disproportionate power in politics, and that has done nothing to resolve the cultural divide. If anything it is worse than ever. I would argue that if you want to try to get rid of the cultural divide we should bring back the Dennis doctrine intermediate, as currently falsehoods spoken in conservative media fuel the culture divide more than anything.

Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jib8c wrote on December 24, 2022 at 9:28 PM

> But why should the status of "living in a rural area" allow one to get more votes, at any level?

I never actually advocated for this. I just pointed out that it's clearly something that was thought about on some levels and not others.

The point is that systems should be set up in a manner where nobody is disenfranchised. People should have a say in the rules being applied to them.

Personally, I think the solution is reducing the scope of federal and state power in favor of regional autonomy.

> as currently falsehoods spoken in conservative media fuel the culture divide more than anything

Lmao, it's not just conservative media man. They are all propaganda machines, right and left.

bernyzilla t1_j1jrk38 wrote on December 24, 2022 at 10:39 PM

Would it regional autonomy you advocate for allow a particular region to ban gay marriage? Reinstate Jim Crow?

>I never actually advocated for this. I just pointed out that it's clearly something that was thought about on some levels and not others.

That is correct. The solution is to give each person an equal say in all levels of politics. One person one vote, regardless of who you are or where you live.

>Lmao, it's not just conservative media man. They are all propaganda machines, right and left.

I guess you haven't argument that all media is pro corporate. But let's not pretend that MSNBC has the same effect on the left that Fox News has on the right. And either way if they're both propaganda machines, then bring back the fairness doctrine with solve the issue anyway. Would you support that?

Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jvm2w wrote on December 24, 2022 at 11:11 PM

>Would it regional autonomy you advocate for allow a particular region to ban gay marriage? Reinstate Jim Crow?

Nobody anywhere should be able to deprive people of their liberties, but we already have that going on right now so I'm not sure what your point is. Institutional discrimination is widespread already.

> That is correct. The solution is to give each person an equal say in all levels of politics. One person one vote, regardless of who you are or where you live.

You're stuck on my electoral college comparison, my point is that people living 200 miles from me, with a different culture, wants, and needs should not have the level of influence over my life that they currently do. Spreading the blame doesn't make totalitarianism less repugnant.

> But let's not pretend that MSNBC has the same effect on the left that Fox News has on the right.

That's just a matter of ratings, not content. Conservatives watch more Fox News than leftists watch the entirety of all left wing mainstream media combined.

> And either way if they're both propaganda machines, then bring back the fairness doctrine with solve the issue anyway. Would you support that?

I'm not a fan of censorship. If power was less concentrated at the top they wouldn't be able to whip the mob into a frenzy like they do. Very few issues would be relevant to the entire nation and there would be much less incentive and demand for 24/7 rage porn on mainstream media to influence high profile political issues/campaigns.

bernyzilla t1_j1kg5av wrote on December 25, 2022 at 2:13 AM

I still don't agree that one side advocating for fascism and the other for universal healthcare is the same thing. At all. Conservative media is a pox on our democracy. Fox news is only good at it because propaganda is easy when you are able to lie continuously. There's a middle ground between censorship and not giving a platform to hate speech that encourages violence, or at the very least regulating what is able to be called "news"

Fine let's leave the electoral college behind for now. Hopefully you can agree it is an outdated institution. A thousand years ago 200 miles was a long way, and people can have a very different culture too much away. Fast transportation and instant communication have changed that. Things aren't really that different across the country, at least not more different than say racial and religious differences between people that could live next door to each other.

But I'm willing to hear you out, You've been some what clear about what you don't like. What do you advocate for?

andthedevilissix t1_j1jil0c wrote on December 24, 2022 at 9:30 PM

The reason that the Senate is 2 for every state instead of by population is because the USA was formed as an alliance between independent states who didn't want to give up their autonomy and didn't want to empower a central government.

Why would a small population state with lots of natural resources join the union if it meant they'd never have a say in anything as a state?

To think about it another way, imagine another reality where California and most of the north eastern states were full of people who thought Trump was awesome and senate seats were awarded via population just like the house, would a liberal WA benefit from being part of a union where WA would never have a meaningful say vs. the pro-Trump states? If no matter what the states with the most population could set the agenda for everyone else, like deciding to build a wall on WA's border with Canada and because WA has a small population compared to CA or NY we'd never be ablet o say "no"...wouldn't it feel pointless and shitty that people thousands of miles away from WA could steamroll the people who live here and do stuff in our state we didnt' like?

bernyzilla t1_j1jqxah wrote on December 24, 2022 at 10:34 PM

Yes, a liberal Washington would still benefit greatly from being in the union. Mutual defense, disaster support, commerce, etc. Each day does get a say in the politics of the country as a whole, But that say should be based on population rather than land area. Land area is one of 100 arbitrary divisions that you could use to influence politics. The only fair way is each person gets one vote.

And if the majority of Americans were pro-Trump supporters, and they voted to build the wall between Washington and Canada, It would annoy me but I would be okay with it because that's how democracy works. Individual parts have to compromise for the greater whole. But I would only be okay with it if it was actually Democratic, If more people believed a certain way or voted that way then fine. I believe in democracy even when the majority doesn't agree with me.

How do you think black people feel being steamrolled by a plurality of white Americans? Women outnumber men in America, But men have a hundred times the political influence. How do you think women feel? Why does the only group that gets extra votes is rural people? It's an outdated arbitrary division and should be abolished.

And it's not like rural Life is even that different. When the county was founded, a factory worker from a city would be totally lost in the country. A rural farmer would equally be lost in the city. But most people in rural areas have jobs similar to people in urban areas. It's not like urban people are factory workers and raw people are farmers anymore. The number of independent farms and ranches has plummeted 40 years. Now people in the middle of nowhere work at the same restaurants and offices, eat at the same fast food chains, watch the same TV, drive the same cars, etc as people living in a city. It's an arbitrary distinction that should not be The basis of perverting democracy. Each individual should get one vote.