Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Yestattooshurt t1_j2sas4x wrote

Reply to comment by PakkyT in Healey should give rural Massachusetts a seat at the table - The Boston Globe by GlobeOpinion

Right? Like do Berkshire and Franklin counties not send representatives to the statehouse?

Aside from that this sounds like some electoral college bullshit like “we want this 20% of the population to have 50/50 say with the other 80% because they choose to live in the woods.

170

8bitAdventures t1_j2sim85 wrote

I think we actually lost a seat recently due to redistricting and population loss?

The majority of folks out here just wish we could get Massachusetts news channels.

51

Yestattooshurt t1_j2slxpi wrote

I mean losing a seat due to population loss is unfortunately the system working. Otherwise you end up with things like wyoming getting 3 representatives in Congress while MA only has 11 (we should have 14 by the same metrics)

69

8bitAdventures t1_j2sn50f wrote

For sure! To be clear, I don’t agree with the opinion piece (to the point that we’ve had reps on important committees recently).

It has the feel of a “the governor only cares about Western MA if they have a house out here” sentiment.

26

Yestattooshurt t1_j2ub4ff wrote

Honestly western MA should just have its own governor, because any governor looking to do the most good for the most people, will inevitably have to focus on the side of the state that has 6 million people.

18

pillbinge t1_j2t2taq wrote

Are you under the impression that the only people living outside Boston, but within MA, are people who chose to live out there? Like they don't have connections, family, roots, or aren't people who grew up there, and call it home?

8

Yestattooshurt t1_j2td8gf wrote

Of course not, but saying that for instance every county should have equal say is insane when middlesex has over a million people and Franklin has 70k

24

thomastodon01027 t1_j2tfrh2 wrote

I don’t think it’s about having equal representation. I think it’s about making sure that certain communities aren’t invisible to the people in power. Nobody is suggesting they get extra votes in the legislature.

22

Kodiak01 t1_j2u17za wrote

> Aside from that this sounds like some electoral college bullshit like “we want this 20% of the population to have 50/50 say with the other 80% because they choose to live in the woods.

How is that any different than the packed urban areas saying they should have a bigger seat at the table (via Popular Vote for President) because most of the country chooses not to live like sardines with them?

−18

Yestattooshurt t1_j2uae89 wrote

Because land doesn’t vote, People do. Giving each county equal say would be giving every resident of Franklin county 22 times more voting power than every resident of middlesex county.

21

Kodiak01 t1_j2ukbc1 wrote

So what, 3/5ths of a vote maybe? Democrats loved that in the past!

−19

winter_bluebird t1_j2wumuw wrote

No, just one vote each. How's that not fair?

2

Kodiak01 t1_j2x3887 wrote

Because the State is it's own distinct entity, recognized by the Constitution. This is part of the US being set up as a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

0

whatsamattafuhyou t1_j2u7kmb wrote

Seriously! Electoral power really should be apportioned according to something sensible like individual contribution to GDP or floor area of the livable space in your primary home.

What’s next from these pinko commie libtards? Jeez!

−4