7 ms·

> The populous centers have more people, so it makes sense that they have more say. This is a rather short-sighted position. There's a reason the tyranny of t

> The populous centers have more people, so it makes sense that they have more say. This is a rather short-sighted position. There's a reason the tyranny of the majority was avoided, and it's because the majority will always vote for their own benefit. If they do so, it almost always hurts the 49%. You have to balance the needs of a state as if it were a living organism. You can't simply optimize everything for the heart when the lungs have needs as well, or the body dies.

ninkendo 6y ago
> tyranny of the majority I keep hearing people say this, and it baffles me. If the majority of people feel a certain way, who's to say it's not the right way? If you start picking this apart it really just comes down to "yeah but the majority can sometimes be wrong", which, I have news for you, applies to the minority as well. At the end of the day, representative democracy exists instead of "pure" democracy because there's issues scaling the operation of government into something where everybody votes on everything. So we decide to have 1 representative for every N people. To do this, we need to break people into cohorts somehow, such that each cohort is roughly the same size. There's lots and lots of ways to do this, but we seemed to have settled on geographic locations, and sizing so that they (mostly) have similar numbers of people. But since populations can be extremely concentrated in some areas, cohorting people by geographic location becomes less and less useful. It seems to me in an ideal world, everyone would be randomly assigned to a cohort via some sort of consistent hash, and they would be evenly distributed. Mind explaining to me why this would be inferior to cohorting on geographic location?
- Proziam 6y ago
  You seem to assume there is a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. There is not. For example, we have California suffering from catastrophic mismanagement of their water resources. You have one group who wants to move more water into the population centers, essentially taking the precious resource from the rural areas (farmland, which is rather important). You have another group who refuses to build more reservoirs or dams to better manage the water (because NIMBY). And then you have the minority, the folks in the rural areas. Nobody is right or wrong, they just all have different priorities. Regardless of those priorities, the resources must be allocated to ensure the entire ecosystem can continue to survive. The only solutions to accomplish that are going to be compromises. But unfortunately, the groups in the population centers have managed for an incredibly long time to avoid compromise. So, now California finds itself in an unenviable position of battling drought and fire nonstop. That is tyranny of the majority.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  I think the great irony of the arguments I see surrounding the tyranny of the majority is that often in rural areas or with rural politicians you'll see them employ this argument. Something like 'we need to protect our way of life from city folk' or 'we're not bothering anyone and want to be left alone'. But then those same rural politicians will then make the opposite argument against other minority populations (such as people whom are LGBT or among race lines) and that we shouldn't let a small minority control our state or that who cares what they think. They switch rapidly from 'tyranny of the majority is bad' to 'tyranny of the minority is bad'.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    Politicians gonna politic. That doesn't mean that the 'tyranny of the majority' doesn't exist, but they're just using the words to try to score points. I caution people not to let politicians become their mental picture of the constituency.
- axaxs 6y ago
  > I keep hearing people say this, and it baffles me. If the majority of people feel a certain way, who's to say it's not the right way? Because, as parent said, the majority will usually benefit themselves even if it means harming the minority. If I belonged to some 51% group, why would I not vote to double my wealth, even if it meant stealing from the other 49%? And before you say 'I would never vote for that', it's never worded that way, but more subtle policies that would achieve the same thing.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    That applies to the minority as well. The minority will benefit themselves even if it harms the majority and involves stealing from the 90%. NIMBY policies are exactly that where wealthy landowners vote and use their wealth to exclusively benefit themselves over everyone else. Rural voters can do the same thing where they vote in people and ways that explicitly harm the larger city as some sort of perceived revenge policy. Which then goes back to the person you responded to: That the majority and the minority can both make wrong policy decisions.
TomSwirly 6y ago
I live in the Netherlands. A tiny country. It would be to this country's advantage if such a mad, insane rule as this were in place. No one ever suggests it because it's obviously ridiculous. LOOK at the results of America's screwed up voting system! A deranged madman in power, the economy in collapse with no rescue even planned, and a virus growing exponentially with no plan to fight it.
- Proziam 6y ago
  You just said it yourself though. You live in a country where the entire population would fit in one metropolitan area of the US. What would work for your country wouldn't necessarily work for ours because we have people living in dramatically different conditions spread across thousands of miles and over 300 million more people to deal with. We have a state with 100,000 square miles and only 600,000 residents. We have another state that has a little more space but has 40 million residents. Their circumstances are so vastly different that the policies of one would be very unlikely to work well for the other. > LOOK at the results of America's screwed up voting system! A deranged madman in power, the economy in collapse with no rescue even planned, and a virus growing exponentially with no plan to fight it. America uses first past the post. It isn't great, there are many better systems later developed. If we were to improve our voting and party system it would benefit the entire country massively.

ninkendo 6y ago

> tyranny of the majority I keep hearing people say this, and it baffles me. If the majority of people feel a certain way, who's to say it's not the right way? If you start picking this apart it really just comes down to "yeah but the majority can sometimes be wrong", which, I have news for you, applies to the minority as well. At the end of the day, representative democracy exists instead of "pure" democracy because there's issues scaling the operation of government into something where everybody votes on everything. So we decide to have 1 representative for every N people. To do this, we need to break people into cohorts somehow, such that each cohort is roughly the same size. There's lots and lots of ways to do this, but we seemed to have settled on geographic locations, and sizing so that they (mostly) have similar numbers of people. But since populations can be extremely concentrated in some areas, cohorting people by geographic location becomes less and less useful. It seems to me in an ideal world, everyone would be randomly assigned to a cohort via some sort of consistent hash, and they would be evenly distributed. Mind explaining to me why this would be inferior to cohorting on geographic location?

Proziam 6y ago
You seem to assume there is a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. There is not. For example, we have California suffering from catastrophic mismanagement of their water resources. You have one group who wants to move more water into the population centers, essentially taking the precious resource from the rural areas (farmland, which is rather important). You have another group who refuses to build more reservoirs or dams to better manage the water (because NIMBY). And then you have the minority, the folks in the rural areas. Nobody is right or wrong, they just all have different priorities. Regardless of those priorities, the resources must be allocated to ensure the entire ecosystem can continue to survive. The only solutions to accomplish that are going to be compromises. But unfortunately, the groups in the population centers have managed for an incredibly long time to avoid compromise. So, now California finds itself in an unenviable position of battling drought and fire nonstop. That is tyranny of the majority.
fzeroracer 6y ago
I think the great irony of the arguments I see surrounding the tyranny of the majority is that often in rural areas or with rural politicians you'll see them employ this argument. Something like 'we need to protect our way of life from city folk' or 'we're not bothering anyone and want to be left alone'. But then those same rural politicians will then make the opposite argument against other minority populations (such as people whom are LGBT or among race lines) and that we shouldn't let a small minority control our state or that who cares what they think. They switch rapidly from 'tyranny of the majority is bad' to 'tyranny of the minority is bad'.
- Proziam 6y ago
  Politicians gonna politic. That doesn't mean that the 'tyranny of the majority' doesn't exist, but they're just using the words to try to score points. I caution people not to let politicians become their mental picture of the constituency.
axaxs 6y ago
> I keep hearing people say this, and it baffles me. If the majority of people feel a certain way, who's to say it's not the right way? Because, as parent said, the majority will usually benefit themselves even if it means harming the minority. If I belonged to some 51% group, why would I not vote to double my wealth, even if it meant stealing from the other 49%? And before you say 'I would never vote for that', it's never worded that way, but more subtle policies that would achieve the same thing.
- fzeroracer 6y ago
  That applies to the minority as well. The minority will benefit themselves even if it harms the majority and involves stealing from the 90%. NIMBY policies are exactly that where wealthy landowners vote and use their wealth to exclusively benefit themselves over everyone else. Rural voters can do the same thing where they vote in people and ways that explicitly harm the larger city as some sort of perceived revenge policy. Which then goes back to the person you responded to: That the majority and the minority can both make wrong policy decisions.

TomSwirly 6y ago

I live in the Netherlands. A tiny country. It would be to this country's advantage if such a mad, insane rule as this were in place. No one ever suggests it because it's obviously ridiculous. LOOK at the results of America's screwed up voting system! A deranged madman in power, the economy in collapse with no rescue even planned, and a virus growing exponentially with no plan to fight it.

Proziam 6y ago
You just said it yourself though. You live in a country where the entire population would fit in one metropolitan area of the US. What would work for your country wouldn't necessarily work for ours because we have people living in dramatically different conditions spread across thousands of miles and over 300 million more people to deal with. We have a state with 100,000 square miles and only 600,000 residents. We have another state that has a little more space but has 40 million residents. Their circumstances are so vastly different that the policies of one would be very unlikely to work well for the other. > LOOK at the results of America's screwed up voting system! A deranged madman in power, the economy in collapse with no rescue even planned, and a virus growing exponentially with no plan to fight it. America uses first past the post. It isn't great, there are many better systems later developed. If we were to improve our voting and party system it would benefit the entire country massively.