3 ms·
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 o
by 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benefit of leaving the building is that people outside the building get 2.5x the say as people in buildings from an outdated set of laws before the concept of modern buildings even existed.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- TallGuyShort 7y ago"I don't like it" doesn't mean "it's outdated".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 agoWell, 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 agoAgain - 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.