4 ms·

This is litterally dehumanization. "Big cities" don't have money or control the media or have outsize power. They have none of those things. They aren't the typ

This is litterally dehumanization. "Big cities" don't have money or control the media or have outsize power. They have none of those things. They aren't the type of entities capable of having those things. Some people within them might, but so what? Why should other people have their votes devalued because they happen to share a geographic area with the rich and influential? That entire notion is at odds with the fundamental precept of individualism. You can throw a lot of obscuring chaff up to try to avoid that, but the system we have is no different than if people got disproportionate political representation on the basis of the color of their skin or the profession they worked in. That's corporatism, not democracy. We have the system have. It's old. It was a great leap forward in a time when much of the world still had monarchies, but is no longer state of the art. It's not unpatriotic to acknowledge that. Love of one's country doesn't require being blind to its flaws.

Consultant32452 9y ago
It's amazing to me that you could deny the outsized power that the people in cities have in our national conversation. The culture in the big cities is what drives all of our media. The people in the cities get to decide what topics are even discussable via the media. Further, if you look at the actual impact of the flyover votes, where do you really see that showing up in national politics? The flyover states have been demolished by the financialization of our country coupled with our economic and trade policies. If the flyover states have outsized power, it certainly isn't helping them. You talk as if the flyover states are steamrolling the cities when in fact it's quite the opposite. And you want to further empower the big cities to steamroll over the rest of the country. If that's not enough to convince you, just look at who tends to vote to increase the size and scope of the federal government vs who tends to vote to minimize it. If the federal power structure isn't in your favor, then why in the world would you want to make it even more powerful? Because it's NOT actually balanced against the big coastal cities.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  You're still treating people as collectives rather than individuals. As I said, that's a fundamentally corporatist ideology. If regions and states and cities are the appropriate level of analysis rather than individual human beings, then why not professions? Shouldn't we worry about the limited number of actuaries having their voices drowned out by the many more retail workers? Why not give actuaries disproportionate political power to prevent them from being "steamrolled"? And how about race? Aren't you worried about African-Americans being steamrolled by the many more Caucasian people? Shouldn't they be given disproportionate legislative power too? Also, religious minorities. Why not have disproportionate political power for Jews and atheists so as to insure that they aren't steamrolled by all the Christians? Lest you think this is some argumentum ad absurdum, such as a system does exist. In Hong Kong: > The legislature is a semi-democratically elected body comprising 70 members, 35 of whom are directly elected through five geographical constituencies (GCs) under the proportional representation system with largest remainder method and Hare quota, while the other 35 are indirectly elected through trade-based functional constituencies (FCs) with limited electorates. > In the political systems of Hong Kong, a functional constituency is a professional or special interest group involved in the electoral process. Eligible voters in a functional constituency may include natural persons as well as other designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations. If you want to argue for that, go ahead. But don't pretend that there's something special about geography minorities that means that liberal democracy and corporatism are compatible. They aren't. Rotten boroughs are as undemocratic in the US as they were in the UK. The problem for us in getting rid of them is a combination of self interest and blind worship of the founding fathers.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    The collective matters. The culture of the people surrounding all the money on the coasts is what drives economic policy, fiscal policy, trade policy, immigration policy, and largely social policy. You're concerned about the mathematical tally of a person's vote and I'm concerned with the actual power they have. I think you're mistaken to conflate the two and that differential is exactly why our electoral college and senate were designed the way they are. You seriously sound like a white person denying white privilege. Sure, the entire nation is designed to maximize your benefit, but the system is rigged in such a way that minorities sometimes get something they want. Meh, you'll be fine.

Consultant32452 9y ago

It's amazing to me that you could deny the outsized power that the people in cities have in our national conversation. The culture in the big cities is what drives all of our media. The people in the cities get to decide what topics are even discussable via the media. Further, if you look at the actual impact of the flyover votes, where do you really see that showing up in national politics? The flyover states have been demolished by the financialization of our country coupled with our economic and trade policies. If the flyover states have outsized power, it certainly isn't helping them. You talk as if the flyover states are steamrolling the cities when in fact it's quite the opposite. And you want to further empower the big cities to steamroll over the rest of the country. If that's not enough to convince you, just look at who tends to vote to increase the size and scope of the federal government vs who tends to vote to minimize it. If the federal power structure isn't in your favor, then why in the world would you want to make it even more powerful? Because it's NOT actually balanced against the big coastal cities.

bradleyjg 9y ago
You're still treating people as collectives rather than individuals. As I said, that's a fundamentally corporatist ideology. If regions and states and cities are the appropriate level of analysis rather than individual human beings, then why not professions? Shouldn't we worry about the limited number of actuaries having their voices drowned out by the many more retail workers? Why not give actuaries disproportionate political power to prevent them from being "steamrolled"? And how about race? Aren't you worried about African-Americans being steamrolled by the many more Caucasian people? Shouldn't they be given disproportionate legislative power too? Also, religious minorities. Why not have disproportionate political power for Jews and atheists so as to insure that they aren't steamrolled by all the Christians? Lest you think this is some argumentum ad absurdum, such as a system does exist. In Hong Kong: > The legislature is a semi-democratically elected body comprising 70 members, 35 of whom are directly elected through five geographical constituencies (GCs) under the proportional representation system with largest remainder method and Hare quota, while the other 35 are indirectly elected through trade-based functional constituencies (FCs) with limited electorates. > In the political systems of Hong Kong, a functional constituency is a professional or special interest group involved in the electoral process. Eligible voters in a functional constituency may include natural persons as well as other designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations. If you want to argue for that, go ahead. But don't pretend that there's something special about geography minorities that means that liberal democracy and corporatism are compatible. They aren't. Rotten boroughs are as undemocratic in the US as they were in the UK. The problem for us in getting rid of them is a combination of self interest and blind worship of the founding fathers.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  The collective matters. The culture of the people surrounding all the money on the coasts is what drives economic policy, fiscal policy, trade policy, immigration policy, and largely social policy. You're concerned about the mathematical tally of a person's vote and I'm concerned with the actual power they have. I think you're mistaken to conflate the two and that differential is exactly why our electoral college and senate were designed the way they are. You seriously sound like a white person denying white privilege. Sure, the entire nation is designed to maximize your benefit, but the system is rigged in such a way that minorities sometimes get something they want. Meh, you'll be fine.