4 ms·
The part about North Dakota having senators way above population share in the country: why is this bad? Maybe they represent a different kind of life. Maybe th
by trabant00 7y ago
The part about North Dakota having senators way above population share in the country: why is this bad?
Maybe they represent a different kind of life. Maybe the zones that encourage overpopulation shouldn't have monopoly on representation. Because on some issues they clearly did bad.
And I think we can stretch this logic to the entire article. The author is as guilty as "not in my back yard" as the rich people. Move you yard! Vote with you wallet. Go live, work and pay taxes where they respect your way of thinking.
Now you want to have your cake and eat it too. You talk against corporations and rich people but you consume their products and dream about making it big yourself. What other reason could you have for staying in mega cities?
- TulliusCicero 7y ago> The part about North Dakota having senators way above population share in the country: why is this bad? Because it's anti-democratic? > Maybe they represent a different kind of life Maybe Hindus have a different way of life than Christians in the US. Should they get bonus representation too, since they're a much smaller population? > And I think we can stretch this logic to the entire article. The author is as guilty as "not in my back yard" as the rich people. Move you yard! Vote with you wallet. Go live, work and pay taxes where they respect your way of thinking. Absurd. Land is fixed, you can't just go generate more of it. And by not allowing more people to live where a booming economy is, they're hurting people, they're hurting economic opportunity, and they're hurting the environment. That is not okay. The winners here are selfish people, largely landowners who benefit from the housing prices being so high. The losers are the rest of us.
- mfatica 7y ago> Because it's anti-democratic? Good thing the US is a federal republic
- TulliusCicero 7y agoIt's also a representative democracy.
- mfatica 7y agoA federal republic is a type of representative democracy, so you're correct.
- TulliusCicero 7y agoSo what was the point of your comment, then? The US is still democratic. If you're specifically objecting to the use of "democratic", I could also say that it's blatantly unfair and nonsensical. Why should North Dakotans have more voting power than Californians or Texans?
- CompanionCuuube 7y agoNorth Dakotans have the same amount of voting power as Californians and Texans. It's just that they have to share with more people. If you have a gallon of pistachio ice cream and a gallon of vanilla ice cream, the pistachio eaters have the same amount of ice cream as the vanilla eaters even if more people like vanilla than pistachio.
- TulliusCicero 7y agoThey have more voting power/representation per capita. Which is ridiculous, and blatantly unfair. People vote, not land.
- scruple 7y agoCan you explain how what you're advocating / arguing for does not distill down to tyranny of the majority? That's how I have always viewed this argument but I'm open to hearing how I am wrong.
- asdff 7y agoEvery citizens vote should be worth the same. The POTUS doesn't work for ND, the state government of ND works for ND. The POTUS works for the citizens of the US and shouldn't be biased to the interests of residents of any one place in particular, which is what happens with the electoral college system. If you want to avoid tyranny of the majority, you don't do it by eliminating equal representation, you do it by dropping first past the post.