4 ms·

The map is designed to make sure all three states end up disenfranchising rural and agricultural interests. I look at that map and see disdain and hate.

gnaritas 9y ago
You mean it favors people over land, good.
- dbcurtis 9y ago
  No. I mean it favors people you like over people you don't give a rat's arse about. THAT is the problem.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    I think every human being should be given equal weight. Do you disagree? If so, what is your standard for deciding that one person should be given more of a voice than another?
    - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
      > I think every human being should be given equal weight. Do you disagree? If so, what is your standard for deciding that one person should be given more of a voice than another? Tyranny of the majority can manifest itself in a lot of different ways. That's one of them.
      - landryraccoon 9y ago
        That doesn't really answer the question though. Tyranny of the majority is when the rights of the minority are trampled on by the majority. What rights are being trampled on here? I hear lots of buzzwords being thrown around like "hate" and "tyranny". Is it just that you are a member of a privileged minority (members of rural areas or lower population states) that have institutionalized greater representation, and you wish to protect that privilege, or what?
        DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > What rights are being trampled on here? That's really not that hard of a question to answer, if you're willing to have some empathy and look at things from someone else's point of view. I say that as someone who has always lived in a large city. Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degree of self-determination and a real say in how they are governed. Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        Please stop talking about land and talk about people. Urban voters are the ones who deserve empathy, they're the ones being put upon by rural voters. You talk as if the rural voters are the victims here, they are not, they are the minority that is currently privileged by having far more say in the system than they should have because their votes count for more than an urban vote. Why don't you have some sympathy for the majority who is being disenfranchised by a screwed up system? > Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords. Yes, like how small towns are dominating the politics of cities by being heavily favored in elections, oh those poor small towns. Tyranny of the minority indeed. Small communities aren't being trampled upon, they're the ones doing the trampling. A fair system would be one where everyone's vote is equal, not one where people count less because they live too closely together. Rural voters currently have far far too much power given their numbers. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 votes in California, and you're claiming small towns are the victims? Really?
        DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > Small communities aren't being trampled upon, they're the ones doing the trampling. lol. You have an hilariously parochial point of view.
        9y ago
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        Tyranny of the majority if vastly preferable to tyranny of the minority which is what generally what anyone claiming "tyranny of the majority" is actually trying to promote. I think all votes should count equally... do you not agree?
        DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        FYI, "tyranny of the majority" means the majority gets what it wants, and damn the minorities. > tyranny of the minority If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        That's how I'm characterizing the current system, currently a rural vote is worth way more than an urban vote; urban voters are currently disenfranchised. We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e. currently the majority is being damned.
        DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > urban voters are currently disenfranchised That's an odd way to complain about not being utterly dominant. > We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e. currently the majority is being damned. That's a pretty myopic read of the situation, and not very valuable. The solution to something like Trump is not to create a permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland, which really seems like your desired outcome.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        What a warped view to interpret my call for a fair system where everyone's vote is equal into creating a "permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland". You're either not listening at all, or you're just too bias to see how biased the system currently is in favor of rural areas. Loss of privilege is not oppression, making the system more fair where all votes are equal does not make the system unfair to rural folk and does not disenfranchise them. You use words you don't seem to understand the meaning of, the only people disenfranchised right now are urban people. Treating every vote equally does not disenfranchise anyone.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    No, I'm advocating for treating all people equally rather than favoring rural people as worth more than urban ones. You're asking for rural people to be valued more.
landryraccoon 9y ago
Can you clarify? One of the states looks to be composed of mostly rural areas. And except for the state made up of mostly LA, the other state looks to have roughly equal rural vs urban representation compared to modern California. Can you clarify what you find offensive about it?
- dbcurtis 9y ago
  All three states would be dominated by urban, coastal voters. It is not designed to create areas of common economic interest, it is dedigned to disenfrancise disfavored interests.
  - sapienthomo 9y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but the population of California itself matches your description. It is impossible to divide the state into three equipopulous areas without those areas being dominated by urban centers, because the great majority of Californians live in those centers. What you seem to be advocating is that the residents of the depopulated areas be given disproportionate representation?
jayd16 9y ago
Taken as a whole, your posts make little sense. Why do you simultaneously think that urbanites show disdain/hate as well as ignorance/apathy over rural parts of the state? Why do you think this is an effort to disenfranchise rural parts of the state while also believing they are already disenfranchised? Why would three states be better at this than one state?
- WkndTriathlete 9y ago
  (Disclaimer: I'm a political moderate. The following are simply some observations and conclusions based on a statistically insignificant sample size and should in no way be construed as an attempt at persuasion toward or impingement of ideologies for the progress of the US, regardless of which political party they originate from.) Some of the posts on this topic are representative of the "disdain/hate" accusation. (Samples from other discussion forums correlate well with the attitudes displayed in some of these posts.) The messaging from urban voters seems to be "We know the best way forward and if you don't agree with us you're an idiot." Disdain generally follows disagreement because that attitude precludes any rational discourse regardless if the disagreements are well-founded. "Hate" probably stems from the use of terms such as "flyover states", "rednecks", "hillbillies", etc. These terms are quite often used in political discourse online, usually by urbanites referring to voters in the central US. Semantically and linguistically these terms are exactly equivalent to any racial slurs, so when the population of the central US hears urbanites utter these words while at the same time championing for racial equality it's no wonder that they assume hypocrisy and hate from those same urbanites. I don't think governance will improve until all sides are willing to think that they might be wrong about their vision of the future and engage in constructive dialog with all or most of the affected parties to reach a compromise.
xenadu02 9y ago
We need fewer people than ever working in agriculture for ever greater output so that's a wash. People continue to flock to cities; urban populations are already the majority and it gets more lopsided every day. That isn't disdain or hate, that's just math. What you're actually asking for is extra power for rural people so they can override the majority. On behalf of the majority of citizens of California: we decline your offer.

gnaritas 9y ago

You mean it favors people over land, good.

dbcurtis 9y ago
No. I mean it favors people you like over people you don't give a rat's arse about. THAT is the problem.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  I think every human being should be given equal weight. Do you disagree? If so, what is your standard for deciding that one person should be given more of a voice than another?
  - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
    > I think every human being should be given equal weight. Do you disagree? If so, what is your standard for deciding that one person should be given more of a voice than another? Tyranny of the majority can manifest itself in a lot of different ways. That's one of them.
    - landryraccoon 9y ago
      That doesn't really answer the question though. Tyranny of the majority is when the rights of the minority are trampled on by the majority. What rights are being trampled on here? I hear lots of buzzwords being thrown around like "hate" and "tyranny". Is it just that you are a member of a privileged minority (members of rural areas or lower population states) that have institutionalized greater representation, and you wish to protect that privilege, or what?
      - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > What rights are being trampled on here? That's really not that hard of a question to answer, if you're willing to have some empathy and look at things from someone else's point of view. I say that as someone who has always lived in a large city. Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degree of self-determination and a real say in how they are governed. Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        Please stop talking about land and talk about people. Urban voters are the ones who deserve empathy, they're the ones being put upon by rural voters. You talk as if the rural voters are the victims here, they are not, they are the minority that is currently privileged by having far more say in the system than they should have because their votes count for more than an urban vote. Why don't you have some sympathy for the majority who is being disenfranchised by a screwed up system? > Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords. Yes, like how small towns are dominating the politics of cities by being heavily favored in elections, oh those poor small towns. Tyranny of the minority indeed. Small communities aren't being trampled upon, they're the ones doing the trampling. A fair system would be one where everyone's vote is equal, not one where people count less because they live too closely together. Rural voters currently have far far too much power given their numbers. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 votes in California, and you're claiming small towns are the victims? Really?
        DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > Small communities aren't being trampled upon, they're the ones doing the trampling. lol. You have an hilariously parochial point of view.
        9y ago
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      Tyranny of the majority if vastly preferable to tyranny of the minority which is what generally what anyone claiming "tyranny of the majority" is actually trying to promote. I think all votes should count equally... do you not agree?
      - DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        FYI, "tyranny of the majority" means the majority gets what it wants, and damn the minorities. > tyranny of the minority If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        That's how I'm characterizing the current system, currently a rural vote is worth way more than an urban vote; urban voters are currently disenfranchised. We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e. currently the majority is being damned.
        DashRattlesnake 9y ago
        > urban voters are currently disenfranchised That's an odd way to complain about not being utterly dominant. > We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e. currently the majority is being damned. That's a pretty myopic read of the situation, and not very valuable. The solution to something like Trump is not to create a permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland, which really seems like your desired outcome.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        What a warped view to interpret my call for a fair system where everyone's vote is equal into creating a "permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland". You're either not listening at all, or you're just too bias to see how biased the system currently is in favor of rural areas. Loss of privilege is not oppression, making the system more fair where all votes are equal does not make the system unfair to rural folk and does not disenfranchise them. You use words you don't seem to understand the meaning of, the only people disenfranchised right now are urban people. Treating every vote equally does not disenfranchise anyone.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  No, I'm advocating for treating all people equally rather than favoring rural people as worth more than urban ones. You're asking for rural people to be valued more.

landryraccoon 9y ago

Can you clarify? One of the states looks to be composed of mostly rural areas. And except for the state made up of mostly LA, the other state looks to have roughly equal rural vs urban representation compared to modern California. Can you clarify what you find offensive about it?

dbcurtis 9y ago
All three states would be dominated by urban, coastal voters. It is not designed to create areas of common economic interest, it is dedigned to disenfrancise disfavored interests.
- sapienthomo 9y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but the population of California itself matches your description. It is impossible to divide the state into three equipopulous areas without those areas being dominated by urban centers, because the great majority of Californians live in those centers. What you seem to be advocating is that the residents of the depopulated areas be given disproportionate representation?

jayd16 9y ago

Taken as a whole, your posts make little sense. Why do you simultaneously think that urbanites show disdain/hate as well as ignorance/apathy over rural parts of the state? Why do you think this is an effort to disenfranchise rural parts of the state while also believing they are already disenfranchised? Why would three states be better at this than one state?

WkndTriathlete 9y ago
(Disclaimer: I'm a political moderate. The following are simply some observations and conclusions based on a statistically insignificant sample size and should in no way be construed as an attempt at persuasion toward or impingement of ideologies for the progress of the US, regardless of which political party they originate from.) Some of the posts on this topic are representative of the "disdain/hate" accusation. (Samples from other discussion forums correlate well with the attitudes displayed in some of these posts.) The messaging from urban voters seems to be "We know the best way forward and if you don't agree with us you're an idiot." Disdain generally follows disagreement because that attitude precludes any rational discourse regardless if the disagreements are well-founded. "Hate" probably stems from the use of terms such as "flyover states", "rednecks", "hillbillies", etc. These terms are quite often used in political discourse online, usually by urbanites referring to voters in the central US. Semantically and linguistically these terms are exactly equivalent to any racial slurs, so when the population of the central US hears urbanites utter these words while at the same time championing for racial equality it's no wonder that they assume hypocrisy and hate from those same urbanites. I don't think governance will improve until all sides are willing to think that they might be wrong about their vision of the future and engage in constructive dialog with all or most of the affected parties to reach a compromise.

xenadu02 9y ago

We need fewer people than ever working in agriculture for ever greater output so that's a wash. People continue to flock to cities; urban populations are already the majority and it gets more lopsided every day. That isn't disdain or hate, that's just math. What you're actually asking for is extra power for rural people so they can override the majority. On behalf of the majority of citizens of California: we decline your offer.