3 ms·

You don't think the people who live somewhere should have a say in what happens there? Having city dwellers decide what happens in rural areas is the tyranny o

You don't think the people who live somewhere should have a say in what happens there? Having city dwellers decide what happens in rural areas is the tyranny of imperialism.

majormajor 6y ago
So it's better to have rural dwellers with an outsized voice in deciding what happens in city areas? You also are performing a convenient geographic sidestep where suddenly "where you live" isn't the country or even the state but is really only concerned with the local. So the rest of the people who live in the nation are diminished. Localism has led to lots of problems in American history, now we can add a shitshow of a Coronavirus response on top of the others. The party of localism tends to be gung-ho about that huge federal military operation... yet refuses a necessarily-similar intervention in a pandemic.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  You paint the not-city with way too broad a brush, and nowhere did I say that people outside of cities should control the city. But you are literally advocating for subjugation without representation. The opposite of localism you describe is imperialism/colonialism.
vmladenov 6y ago
That is an argument for federalism, not vote tally inequality.
Paradox0 6y ago
No, it doesn't make sense that people should have greater voting power based on their location in the same polity. Your argument is equally valid in reverse -- there's no reason why rural dwellers should decide what happens in cities. Why should your vote count for more because I have more neighbors than you do?
- nightski 6y ago
  While city dwellers vote may be technically less powerful on a per capita basis, they make up for it in numbers. There are simply more of you with similar needs/wants. Not to mention far more money to achieve those needs and wants. In a city an individual's needs from his/her government are just less unique.
  - defterGoose 6y ago
    | In a city an individual's needs from his/her government are just less unique So...rural snowflake status confirmed?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how voting should work. The idea is not "the rules should be set up so people like me get a bigger voice". It's _one person, one vote._ You don't get an extra vote because you're "unique". What? It strikes me that you basically want the voting system to be be biased to your advantage against a group of people you probably don't like very much. If this is true, it speaks extremely poorly of your sense of moral fairness.
    - nightski 6y ago
      No, I want both minority and majority voices heard. What I am saying is that city voices are strong. They get the majority of the funding and influence when it comes to politics, regardless of voting power on a per capita basis. The difference is you are arguing that rural citizens should get no say whatsoever. I care about everyone instead of only those living in a small geographic circle and understand that the needs of those living outside of that circle are unique from city dwellers themselves.
      - 6y ago
paulmd 6y ago
You do have a say in what happens there, that's why there's local elections.
majormajor 6y ago
An extra large irony here is that "left-leaning cities in right-leaning states" is much more common than the reverse, so what we often see in practice is rural state dwellers telling city dwellers in those states what to do. Look at the mask stuff for Atlanta vs Georgia from today, for instance. That's without skewing the strength of the vote, even! So, no, I'm far from convinced that we have to protect the poor rural folks from their fellow citizens.
thehappypm 6y ago
No, it isn't. One person, one vote. If there are more farmers than city dwellers, the farmers have more say. If there are more city dwellers than farmers, the city dwellers have more say.
TomSwirly 6y ago
Let me get this straight. You think that some people should get effectively more votes, just because of where they live? And if these people don't get extra votes, it's "the tyranny of imperialism"?

You don't think the people who live somewhere should have a say in what happens there? Having city dwellers decide what happens in rural areas is the tyranny of imperialism.

majormajor 6y ago

So it's better to have rural dwellers with an outsized voice in deciding what happens in city areas? You also are performing a convenient geographic sidestep where suddenly "where you live" isn't the country or even the state but is really only concerned with the local. So the rest of the people who live in the nation are diminished. Localism has led to lots of problems in American history, now we can add a shitshow of a Coronavirus response on top of the others. The party of localism tends to be gung-ho about that huge federal military operation... yet refuses a necessarily-similar intervention in a pandemic.

nitrogen 6y ago
You paint the not-city with way too broad a brush, and nowhere did I say that people outside of cities should control the city. But you are literally advocating for subjugation without representation. The opposite of localism you describe is imperialism/colonialism.

vmladenov 6y ago

That is an argument for federalism, not vote tally inequality.

Paradox0 6y ago

No, it doesn't make sense that people should have greater voting power based on their location in the same polity. Your argument is equally valid in reverse -- there's no reason why rural dwellers should decide what happens in cities. Why should your vote count for more because I have more neighbors than you do?

nightski 6y ago
While city dwellers vote may be technically less powerful on a per capita basis, they make up for it in numbers. There are simply more of you with similar needs/wants. Not to mention far more money to achieve those needs and wants. In a city an individual's needs from his/her government are just less unique.
- defterGoose 6y ago
  | In a city an individual's needs from his/her government are just less unique So...rural snowflake status confirmed?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how voting should work. The idea is not "the rules should be set up so people like me get a bigger voice". It's _one person, one vote._ You don't get an extra vote because you're "unique". What? It strikes me that you basically want the voting system to be be biased to your advantage against a group of people you probably don't like very much. If this is true, it speaks extremely poorly of your sense of moral fairness.
  - nightski 6y ago
    No, I want both minority and majority voices heard. What I am saying is that city voices are strong. They get the majority of the funding and influence when it comes to politics, regardless of voting power on a per capita basis. The difference is you are arguing that rural citizens should get no say whatsoever. I care about everyone instead of only those living in a small geographic circle and understand that the needs of those living outside of that circle are unique from city dwellers themselves.
    - 6y ago

paulmd 6y ago

You do have a say in what happens there, that's why there's local elections.

majormajor 6y ago

An extra large irony here is that "left-leaning cities in right-leaning states" is much more common than the reverse, so what we often see in practice is rural state dwellers telling city dwellers in those states what to do. Look at the mask stuff for Atlanta vs Georgia from today, for instance. That's without skewing the strength of the vote, even! So, no, I'm far from convinced that we have to protect the poor rural folks from their fellow citizens.

thehappypm 6y ago

No, it isn't. One person, one vote. If there are more farmers than city dwellers, the farmers have more say. If there are more city dwellers than farmers, the city dwellers have more say.

TomSwirly 6y ago

Let me get this straight. You think that some people should get effectively more votes, just because of where they live? And if these people don't get extra votes, it's "the tyranny of imperialism"?