10 ms·

"held hostage by rural voters" is an interesting choice of words considering they already feel the same way. There are already movements in a number of states w

"held hostage by rural voters" is an interesting choice of words considering they already feel the same way. There are already movements in a number of states with a lot of local support to have rural areas that are politically dominated by urban voters secede and join other states that more closely align with their values. I don't know why state governments don't let that happen more freely if they aren't actually trying to be the ones holding others hostage.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>I don't know why state governments don't let that happen more freely if they aren't actually trying to be the ones holding others hostage. Because the people who run governments often think in terms of maximizing power because that is what it takes to be a successful career politician. When you think that way of course it seems stupid to give up a bunch of people and land who pay taxes to you, count toward your population but aren't actually numerous enough to over-rule the majority party even if the presence of those people is not liked by them and your base. While no particular leader may see themselves as holding the minority group hostage political map lines never get re drawn because there are bigger fires to fight and broaching an topic involving re-drawing the political map has many, many ways to go wrong and maybe a couple to go right.
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Exactly. If somebody tries to leave a building and you won't let them, they're not the hostage taker. If you really don't like rural voters and think they're just a burden, prove it, and support parting ways. Oh and fuck the silent downvoters. Get over yourselves already and stop pretending you understand the people you disagree with.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    It works both ways. In this case the only benefit of leaving the building is that people outside the building get 2.5x the say as people in buildings from an outdated set of laws before the concept of modern buildings even existed. I'm stretching your analogy to its limits here but both parties can claim to be held hostage to some degree.
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      "I don't like it" doesn't mean "it's outdated". Today's heavy differences in population density is exactly why the great compromise was reached. How is it any different from when Virginia and Rhode Island were deciding if they should be part of the same country? If you don't like Trump, I have sympathy, I also hate the guy. But the Democratic Party used superdelegates to pick a notoriously unelectable candidate who was never going to win over moderates, and employed slogans like "it's not rigged, you just lost". And then they tried to blame the loss on the Great Compromise, which is kind of like superdelegates but not as arbitrary. For that, I'm afraid, I have no sympathy.
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        Well, for one, Virginia had an interest in Rhode Island being part of the US. Does California benefit from being in the same country as North Dakota? Apart from having their democratic ability in choosing their own executive diluted, not really. So "great" is really a question of great for who.
        TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Again - if you really think that - the solution is to PART WAYS, not try and get one over on them in return. I can see it's all about principles, but only as long as you're the one benefiting.
manigandham 7y ago
Because redrawing state lines is not a simple thing, nor would it really solve the fact that there will be a mix of different voters and values in every location.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>I don't know why state governments don't let that happen more freely if they aren't actually trying to be the ones holding others hostage. Because the people who run governments often think in terms of maximizing power because that is what it takes to be a successful career politician. When you think that way of course it seems stupid to give up a bunch of people and land who pay taxes to you, count toward your population but aren't actually numerous enough to over-rule the majority party even if the presence of those people is not liked by them and your base. While no particular leader may see themselves as holding the minority group hostage political map lines never get re drawn because there are bigger fires to fight and broaching an topic involving re-drawing the political map has many, many ways to go wrong and maybe a couple to go right.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Exactly. If somebody tries to leave a building and you won't let them, they're not the hostage taker. If you really don't like rural voters and think they're just a burden, prove it, and support parting ways. Oh and fuck the silent downvoters. Get over yourselves already and stop pretending you understand the people you disagree with.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  It works both ways. In this case the only benefit of leaving the building is that people outside the building get 2.5x the say as people in buildings from an outdated set of laws before the concept of modern buildings even existed. I'm stretching your analogy to its limits here but both parties can claim to be held hostage to some degree.
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    "I don't like it" doesn't mean "it's outdated". Today's heavy differences in population density is exactly why the great compromise was reached. How is it any different from when Virginia and Rhode Island were deciding if they should be part of the same country? If you don't like Trump, I have sympathy, I also hate the guy. But the Democratic Party used superdelegates to pick a notoriously unelectable candidate who was never going to win over moderates, and employed slogans like "it's not rigged, you just lost". And then they tried to blame the loss on the Great Compromise, which is kind of like superdelegates but not as arbitrary. For that, I'm afraid, I have no sympathy.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      Well, for one, Virginia had an interest in Rhode Island being part of the US. Does California benefit from being in the same country as North Dakota? Apart from having their democratic ability in choosing their own executive diluted, not really. So "great" is really a question of great for who.
      - TallGuyShort 7y ago
        Again - if you really think that - the solution is to PART WAYS, not try and get one over on them in return. I can see it's all about principles, but only as long as you're the one benefiting.

manigandham 7y ago

Because redrawing state lines is not a simple thing, nor would it really solve the fact that there will be a mix of different voters and values in every location.