4 ms·
That is an argument for local government not for how we elect our representatives to a national body. Do we really want representatives pulling spending to a p
by nsnick 9y ago
That is an argument for local government not for how we elect our representatives to a national body. Do we really want representatives pulling spending to a particular geographic region? It seems to me that people in San Francisco have more in common with people in New York than people in Fresno. Even cities may not be appropriate to divide up the population. Maybe we should divide representation by occupation, education level, or wealth. After all geography is mostly just a proxy for wealth.
A good first step would be proportional representation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
- Wohlf 9y agoThis is literally the reason we have a bicameral legislature. One represents the state, the other represents the local populations.
- goialoq 9y agoThat's not true. We have a bicameral legislature because the smaller colonies negotiated for it at the start of the Union as a way to increase their power (smaller population -> Senate gives disproportionate power), at a time where the People were largely ignored and the balance of power was among the aristocrats.
- crispyambulance 9y ago"proportional representation" is just another libertarian pipe-dream. Much better to be realistic and accept that there's not going to be a radical change in the mechanisms of how we are represented in government. The best thing we can do to address gerrymandering is to keep partisans from coming up with zany voting districts which are optimized strictly for their own political benefit. Cities aren't dead yet. It still makes sense to divide carve out districts according to population centers and geography.