4 ms·

Well, because the majority of the population might not vote to distribute money to infrastructure outside of their area - why should the state pay for something

Well, because the majority of the population might not vote to distribute money to infrastructure outside of their area - why should the state pay for something that the majority of the state won't immediately use? Without some political power, the rural areas wouldn't be likely to even get proportional funding and infrastructure. There are a lot of issues that are fundamentally important to people living in one area that those in another don't care about. Water rights for agriculture are a good example. The most important part, though? If you live in the city and your vote counts 9/10ths of the vote of a person in a rural community, you're probably not going to complain about lack of representation. If you live in a rural community and you have one representative and the city has 12, you may complain and that complaint may turn into violence or rebellion, because you feel you don't have adequate representation even though statistically speaking, you do.

vkou 8y ago
The majority of the population might not vote to extend the same services, rights, protection, or opportunities to minorities. There's a lot of issues important to those demographics, that are, in the world we live in, not important to others. If you give cis white people 9/10th of the vote of a trans black person, people will absolutely complain about lack of representation. They will lose their minds. Have you been paying any attention to gender/race issues over the past... Well, ever? There are political movements, with street marches, and torches focused on 'taking the country back' from people who are, by most metrics, are getting the short end of the stick.
- ameister14 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm not talking about gender/race though. I'm talking about regions. It's a different story when you look at your literal neighbor and they have more representation than you. And actually, yes, most of this anger is linked to a feeling that people in rural areas have too little representation compared to major population centers, where most people live. So this illustrates what happens when you've got proportional representation but a completely unbalanced population distribution; it's fine when everything is going well, but when the mills close down and the farms go out of business, you get a lot of angry people who feel they have no political outlet.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > It's a different story when you look at your literal neighbor and they have more representation than you. Jealousy is not a particularly sound or convincing ideological justification. > And actually, yes, most of this anger is linked to a feeling that people in rural areas have too little representation compared to major population centers, where most people live. It's worth pointing out that MA is a bit of a special case nationally. In most of the Midwest, for example, the resentment (and power/money) flows the other way.
    - ameister14 8y ago
      It might not be a reasonable, logical justification, but it exists. Operating on and creating a framework of laws that operate on flawed concepts of human nature leads to operational failures. It's one of the main problems with economics, traditionally. The right laws and system of government works with an understanding of human nature including jealousy, laziness, greed and other weaknesses. In fact, one of the arguments used at the constitutional convention against Madison's proposed Negative was jealousy on the part of the representatives, as the Senate would hold powers that the representatives did not. It's not an incredibly convincing argument to me, but it happened. MA isn't that much of a special case, as it's the case in the majority of states and Federally. I'm surprised that it's not in places like Iowa - especially as urban populations grow while rural decline, but maybe that's balanced by the majority of industry being related to agriculture.
      - throwawayjava 8y ago
        On the one hand, you say we need to give geographic minorities extra power so that their interests are protected. On the one hand, you say we shouldn't give other minorities extra power because without geographic distance jealousy/tension would overwhelm the political system. I can't help but point out that you're making this claim on a thread attached to a story about a violent rural rebellion against urbanites! I.e., geography doesn't defuse those tensions. So given that those tensions exist no matter what, is there any justification? > It might not be a reasonable, logical justification, but it exists. So to be clear, there's no reasonable justification for giving geographic minorities extra voting poewr that doesn't also justify giving other minorities extra voting power. The only justification is grounded in realism: a fear of jealous-inspired violence toward neighbors that geographic distance would presumably prevent. How does the very article we're commenting on not completely refute this argument? > MA isn't that much of a special case, as it's the case in the majority of states and Federally. It's a special case in the majority of land mass (this is just a tounge-in-cheek joke ;-) ) Federally, I disagree. Democrats won the popular vote in the Senate and Presidency but control neither. That's largely attributable to urban voters in states that allocated their electoral votes to (R).

vkou 8y ago

The majority of the population might not vote to extend the same services, rights, protection, or opportunities to minorities. There's a lot of issues important to those demographics, that are, in the world we live in, not important to others. If you give cis white people 9/10th of the vote of a trans black person, people will absolutely complain about lack of representation. They will lose their minds. Have you been paying any attention to gender/race issues over the past... Well, ever? There are political movements, with street marches, and torches focused on 'taking the country back' from people who are, by most metrics, are getting the short end of the stick.

ameister14 8y ago
Yeah, I'm not talking about gender/race though. I'm talking about regions. It's a different story when you look at your literal neighbor and they have more representation than you. And actually, yes, most of this anger is linked to a feeling that people in rural areas have too little representation compared to major population centers, where most people live. So this illustrates what happens when you've got proportional representation but a completely unbalanced population distribution; it's fine when everything is going well, but when the mills close down and the farms go out of business, you get a lot of angry people who feel they have no political outlet.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > It's a different story when you look at your literal neighbor and they have more representation than you. Jealousy is not a particularly sound or convincing ideological justification. > And actually, yes, most of this anger is linked to a feeling that people in rural areas have too little representation compared to major population centers, where most people live. It's worth pointing out that MA is a bit of a special case nationally. In most of the Midwest, for example, the resentment (and power/money) flows the other way.
  - ameister14 8y ago
    It might not be a reasonable, logical justification, but it exists. Operating on and creating a framework of laws that operate on flawed concepts of human nature leads to operational failures. It's one of the main problems with economics, traditionally. The right laws and system of government works with an understanding of human nature including jealousy, laziness, greed and other weaknesses. In fact, one of the arguments used at the constitutional convention against Madison's proposed Negative was jealousy on the part of the representatives, as the Senate would hold powers that the representatives did not. It's not an incredibly convincing argument to me, but it happened. MA isn't that much of a special case, as it's the case in the majority of states and Federally. I'm surprised that it's not in places like Iowa - especially as urban populations grow while rural decline, but maybe that's balanced by the majority of industry being related to agriculture.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      On the one hand, you say we need to give geographic minorities extra power so that their interests are protected. On the one hand, you say we shouldn't give other minorities extra power because without geographic distance jealousy/tension would overwhelm the political system. I can't help but point out that you're making this claim on a thread attached to a story about a violent rural rebellion against urbanites! I.e., geography doesn't defuse those tensions. So given that those tensions exist no matter what, is there any justification? > It might not be a reasonable, logical justification, but it exists. So to be clear, there's no reasonable justification for giving geographic minorities extra voting poewr that doesn't also justify giving other minorities extra voting power. The only justification is grounded in realism: a fear of jealous-inspired violence toward neighbors that geographic distance would presumably prevent. How does the very article we're commenting on not completely refute this argument? > MA isn't that much of a special case, as it's the case in the majority of states and Federally. It's a special case in the majority of land mass (this is just a tounge-in-cheek joke ;-) ) Federally, I disagree. Democrats won the popular vote in the Senate and Presidency but control neither. That's largely attributable to urban voters in states that allocated their electoral votes to (R).