5 ms·

If you break this argument down, it gets really muddled. Let's pick a state - Kansas, nice and rectangle. Let's say it was empty, and 10 farmers moved in and

by axaxs 6y ago

If you break this argument down, it gets really muddled. Let's pick a state - Kansas, nice and rectangle. Let's say it was empty, and 10 farmers moved in and divided it 10 ways. They are happy to themselves on their huge plots of land, doing their own thing. One farmer needs extra cash, so sells off a dozen acres. That dozen acres puts in a neighborhood of 20 houses. Now that 20 houses controls the entire state, effectively. They decide people shouldn't be able to own so much land, and owning more than 10 acres is illegal. Sure it's contrived, but you start to notice how it's not as simple as 'majority rules is best.'

fzeroracer 6y ago
If you were to break down the argument even further, let's say Kansas had a farmer that owned 90% of the land. The remaining 10% of the land was shared between 1000 people. Why should that single farmer be allowed to control the entire state over the rest of the 1000 people?
- axaxs 6y ago
  I'm not making that argument, either. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. I honestly don't think either scenario is correct, so what's the solution?
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    You're implicitly making that argument though - pitting raw number of people vs land owned as a measure of who gets more say.
    - axaxs 6y ago
      I'm making the argument that one concentrated area should not control the fate of a much larger area. I'm not, however, asserting that the larger area should control the fate of the concentrated area, either.
      - paulmd 6y ago
        I think the issue we're all dancing around is that state lines really need to be re-cut. The rural areas have more in common with each other, the urban areas have more in common with each other. Cut the urban areas into their own states (eg take the metro NYC or Chicago area and make them their own states) and then merge a lot of the "empty land" in between to try and equalize the population somewhat. End up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 urban states and 15 rural states.
        axaxs 6y ago
        Yeah, I got downvoted, but I was really trying to be philosophical and frame an opposing side. I walked around a while thinking on it, and that's all I came up with - more states. Our nation would look really gerrymandered, I think.
        paulmd 6y ago
        I actually think less states. Like, even 15 rural states is probably a stretch, it probably would be closer to 8. There really isn't a point to having like 30 states that have less than a half million people in them. I would slice it into something like: * Appalachia Region * Gulf Region * Great Lakes Region * Heartland region * Rockies Region * Cascadia Region * Desert Region (Southwest US - need a better name but I'm coming up with a blank.) * Maybe a Northern Shield region? Could just be part of the rockies region. Those areas all have common environmental concerns and life experiences, and would bring a sufficient number of residents to be worth bothering over. Then you have the metro areas as their own states, enclaves within the larger regions. If metro areas grow out you would probably would have to have some mechanism to vote to transfer counties/districts between states. Never going to happen of course, the number of political barriers is insane. And Republicans would never ratify any such plan that rearranged states as any sensible arrangement would unwind the disproportionate power they wield based on the current arrangement. The only mechanism that could conceivably be achieved is splitting blue states up, and it's not really a good one since populations are so concentrated - imagine trying to split New York City into like 5 independent states, it would just be completely impossible to administer in practice. In reality we will just keep bumbling along with our current system that immensely, disproportionately advantages the rural states and rural populations. Unless the country goes into an actual civil war, of course, which is not as unthinkable as it was 4 years ago.

by axaxs 6y ago

fzeroracer 6y ago

If you were to break down the argument even further, let's say Kansas had a farmer that owned 90% of the land. The remaining 10% of the land was shared between 1000 people. Why should that single farmer be allowed to control the entire state over the rest of the 1000 people?

axaxs 6y ago
I'm not making that argument, either. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate. I honestly don't think either scenario is correct, so what's the solution?
- sangnoir 6y ago
  You're implicitly making that argument though - pitting raw number of people vs land owned as a measure of who gets more say.
  - axaxs 6y ago
    I'm making the argument that one concentrated area should not control the fate of a much larger area. I'm not, however, asserting that the larger area should control the fate of the concentrated area, either.
    - paulmd 6y ago
      I think the issue we're all dancing around is that state lines really need to be re-cut. The rural areas have more in common with each other, the urban areas have more in common with each other. Cut the urban areas into their own states (eg take the metro NYC or Chicago area and make them their own states) and then merge a lot of the "empty land" in between to try and equalize the population somewhat. End up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 urban states and 15 rural states.
      - axaxs 6y ago
        Yeah, I got downvoted, but I was really trying to be philosophical and frame an opposing side. I walked around a while thinking on it, and that's all I came up with - more states. Our nation would look really gerrymandered, I think.
        paulmd 6y ago
        I actually think less states. Like, even 15 rural states is probably a stretch, it probably would be closer to 8. There really isn't a point to having like 30 states that have less than a half million people in them. I would slice it into something like: * Appalachia Region * Gulf Region * Great Lakes Region * Heartland region * Rockies Region * Cascadia Region * Desert Region (Southwest US - need a better name but I'm coming up with a blank.) * Maybe a Northern Shield region? Could just be part of the rockies region. Those areas all have common environmental concerns and life experiences, and would bring a sufficient number of residents to be worth bothering over. Then you have the metro areas as their own states, enclaves within the larger regions. If metro areas grow out you would probably would have to have some mechanism to vote to transfer counties/districts between states. Never going to happen of course, the number of political barriers is insane. And Republicans would never ratify any such plan that rearranged states as any sensible arrangement would unwind the disproportionate power they wield based on the current arrangement. The only mechanism that could conceivably be achieved is splitting blue states up, and it's not really a good one since populations are so concentrated - imagine trying to split New York City into like 5 independent states, it would just be completely impossible to administer in practice. In reality we will just keep bumbling along with our current system that immensely, disproportionately advantages the rural states and rural populations. Unless the country goes into an actual civil war, of course, which is not as unthinkable as it was 4 years ago.