3 ms·

Your argument is fine and dandy until you realize that the same thing you set out to prevent now happens to majority. $15 is devastating in rural area so you do

Your argument is fine and dandy until you realize that the same thing you set out to prevent now happens to majority. $15 is devastating in rural area so you don't implement it, now it is economically devastating in urban areas and affecting the majority. Which would you prefer? Democracy in most countries works this way. Majority of the people affecting the decisions, even if it hurts a minority. Democracy is not always getting what you want, it is sometimes not getting what you want because most of the people want something else.

pklausler 10y ago
Let's not get hung up on the $15/hr rate issue; the larger assertion is that people concentrated in cities shouldn't have a say in the management of the land that's (mostly) upstream from them, and that's why a Wyoming voter should have 4x the voting power for President than a California voter. (WY: 585,000 pop., 3 EV; CA: 38.8M pop., 55 EV).
- brightball 10y ago
  It seems like moving to Wyoming to have your vote count 4x as much would be powerful thing then. Then again, your priorities might change if you live in Wyoming.
- vaishaksuresh 10y ago
  My point still stands. The Wyoming voter now has 4X more say in things that affect a vast majority of people In CA. States should govern things that affect the land management in this case and federal government should not deal with that.
brightball 10y ago
I'd prefer policy that's desired and potentially harmful to be isolated, where it can fail in isolation or succeed there. That way other areas can observe and decide to either copy it if it works or avoid it if it's harmful. It's not devastating to the majority if it happens in one or two cities or counties because it's just affecting those cities and counties. If EVERY major city decided to implement it then it would actually be affecting the majority...but as a bonus since every major city would have chosen it they could also just as easily get rid of it if they found it wasn't working in their area. At the Federal level where it's blanket implemented across the board all the places that don't want it are essentially just screwed since they're too small to have a say in the matter.
- vaishaksuresh 10y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. Let states implement the policy that affects the state and let the country as a whole elect the federal government. There is no need for some votes to have more power than some other votes based on the states when electing the President.
  - brightball 10y ago
    That would make sense if there were strict limitations on what the federal government had the power to do (aka - the Constitution). The problem is that federal powers have increased due to overly broad interpretations of the commerce clause. If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. Legalization laws in Colorado and Washington for example could be totally trumped by the federal government at any point right now. The fed's lack of prosecution is the only thing stopping it. Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. In order to change that, you've got to give states the power to essentially reject the federal government at their discretion...which would be great and would largely reduce the demand for change to the EC by virtue of turning the Fed toothless for any policy that people rejected...which again would be ideal long term so that federal elections weren't some constant struggle to see which half of the country got to impose itself on the other half.
    - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
      I see what you're saying but I would also like to point out that it works both way. States can and will revoke reproductive rights, same sex marriage and other rights. IMHO, Anything that impacts one state directly while not affecting the larger population should be controlled by state, everything else should be federal. This includes marijuana legalization, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gun control etc. because they are not state specific and majority/minority status of a state has nothing to do with it.
      - brightball 10y ago

pklausler 10y ago

Let's not get hung up on the $15/hr rate issue; the larger assertion is that people concentrated in cities shouldn't have a say in the management of the land that's (mostly) upstream from them, and that's why a Wyoming voter should have 4x the voting power for President than a California voter. (WY: 585,000 pop., 3 EV; CA: 38.8M pop., 55 EV).

brightball 10y ago
It seems like moving to Wyoming to have your vote count 4x as much would be powerful thing then. Then again, your priorities might change if you live in Wyoming.
vaishaksuresh 10y ago
My point still stands. The Wyoming voter now has 4X more say in things that affect a vast majority of people In CA. States should govern things that affect the land management in this case and federal government should not deal with that.

brightball 10y ago

I'd prefer policy that's desired and potentially harmful to be isolated, where it can fail in isolation or succeed there. That way other areas can observe and decide to either copy it if it works or avoid it if it's harmful. It's not devastating to the majority if it happens in one or two cities or counties because it's just affecting those cities and counties. If EVERY major city decided to implement it then it would actually be affecting the majority...but as a bonus since every major city would have chosen it they could also just as easily get rid of it if they found it wasn't working in their area. At the Federal level where it's blanket implemented across the board all the places that don't want it are essentially just screwed since they're too small to have a say in the matter.

vaishaksuresh 10y ago
Exactly my thoughts. Let states implement the policy that affects the state and let the country as a whole elect the federal government. There is no need for some votes to have more power than some other votes based on the states when electing the President.
- brightball 10y ago
  That would make sense if there were strict limitations on what the federal government had the power to do (aka - the Constitution). The problem is that federal powers have increased due to overly broad interpretations of the commerce clause. If we fully embrace the 10th amendment and give states the comfortable and regular power to reject federal policy, then this becomes a self correcting problem. Legalization laws in Colorado and Washington for example could be totally trumped by the federal government at any point right now. The fed's lack of prosecution is the only thing stopping it. Currently the only thing stopping big states from mob-ruling smaller states IS the electoral college. In order to change that, you've got to give states the power to essentially reject the federal government at their discretion...which would be great and would largely reduce the demand for change to the EC by virtue of turning the Fed toothless for any policy that people rejected...which again would be ideal long term so that federal elections weren't some constant struggle to see which half of the country got to impose itself on the other half.
  - vaishaksuresh 10y ago
    I see what you're saying but I would also like to point out that it works both way. States can and will revoke reproductive rights, same sex marriage and other rights. IMHO, Anything that impacts one state directly while not affecting the larger population should be controlled by state, everything else should be federal. This includes marijuana legalization, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gun control etc. because they are not state specific and majority/minority status of a state has nothing to do with it.
    - brightball 10y ago