3 ms·

> 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

> 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).
  - ameister14 8y ago
    >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! Exactly - Shay's rebellion occurred in large part because rural voters didn't feel that they were adequately represented in their government. The Federal government didn't have enough power to oversee what was happening and the State government was made up of people from other districts, who then proceeded to disenfranchise people in the rural areas in order to more completely concentrate voting power in the urban East. >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 reasonable justification, beyond infrastructure spending, differences in industry and geographical considerations is that other minorities don't have a history of rebellion. In a centralized power structure, rural areas DO have a history of rebellion, successful rebellion, especially when they feel their interests are not served by the central government.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      > The reasonable justification... successful rebellion I suppose we all would've spilled less ink if you had just led with "might makes right" :-)
      - ameister14 8y ago
        It's foolish to ignore things that have led to armed conflict and focus on what's fair. I mentioned several reasons, but yes, the need to balance potential for armed conflict is one. Should it not be?

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).
- ameister14 8y ago
  >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! Exactly - Shay's rebellion occurred in large part because rural voters didn't feel that they were adequately represented in their government. The Federal government didn't have enough power to oversee what was happening and the State government was made up of people from other districts, who then proceeded to disenfranchise people in the rural areas in order to more completely concentrate voting power in the urban East. >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 reasonable justification, beyond infrastructure spending, differences in industry and geographical considerations is that other minorities don't have a history of rebellion. In a centralized power structure, rural areas DO have a history of rebellion, successful rebellion, especially when they feel their interests are not served by the central government.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > The reasonable justification... successful rebellion I suppose we all would've spilled less ink if you had just led with "might makes right" :-)
    - ameister14 8y ago
      It's foolish to ignore things that have led to armed conflict and focus on what's fair. I mentioned several reasons, but yes, the need to balance potential for armed conflict is one. Should it not be?