4 ms·

I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from. there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. Cit

I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from. there were no metropolis like we have them today back then. City were considered gigantic with with only a few hundred thousand people -- which is maybe a largish town nowadays Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, as they have disproportionate voting power. That term doesn't mean that they shouldn't be represented, it means that they have proportionally more voting power then a person living in a city does.

kodah 5y ago
> I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead? > there were no metropolis like we have them today back then In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote next to people who took months to get to the East coast for voting. Their problems were very different and the electoral college helped balance the concerns of cities that have easy access to imports and labor with areas that had no such things. On the larger scale it helped protect smaller states and territories from the policy and influence of larger states and territories. Again, their problems are very different, and in current day translate to what we end up referring to as urban, suburban, and rural. > Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, In the US they're not and you still haven't answered my original question, which is how are they overrepresented. You're just stating that's a fact, but it's really not.
- 411111111111111 5y ago
  Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis? Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.
  - kodah 5y ago
    No, voting is much more complicated than that and the history of our voting system speaks to that. Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about. The foundation of your argument is also flawed; if rural areas are so overrepresented then we'd be seeing a lot more emphasis on the funding of rural schools, hospital systems, clean drinking water, and broadband. Instead, these issues are regularly underfunded and are even joked about on forums like this. There's lots of issues in the US to solve. Voting, imo, is just the pet issue of the losing party.
    - 411111111111111 5y ago
      > Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about Every form of democracy is flawed, and it's important to be aware of them. Otherwise things tend to kinda spiral out of control, which they arguably already have in a lot of western nations with wanton corruption and completely insane people getting elected.

kodah 5y ago

> I don't live in the USA, so i'm just repeating whats literally taught in school where i'm from You spoke so certainly about the subject that that was not apparent. Maybe it should have been a question instead? > there were no metropolis like we have them today back then In the US there were, and the early development of the US is the reason for the electoral college. You had sprawling cities like NYC having to vote next to people who took months to get to the East coast for voting. Their problems were very different and the electoral college helped balance the concerns of cities that have easy access to imports and labor with areas that had no such things. On the larger scale it helped protect smaller states and territories from the policy and influence of larger states and territories. Again, their problems are very different, and in current day translate to what we end up referring to as urban, suburban, and rural. > Nobody said that rural people being represented is an issue, its nonetheless a fact that they're overrepresented, In the US they're not and you still haven't answered my original question, which is how are they overrepresented. You're just stating that's a fact, but it's really not.

411111111111111 5y ago
Isn't "overrepresented" another way of saying that each individual voter living in a rural area has effectively more voting power then it's counterpart living in a metropolis? Thats why I'm stating it as a fact,as it sounds like very simple logical connection. It could be a misunderstanding on my part, but it always sounded like a very straightforward situation to me.
- kodah 5y ago
  No, voting is much more complicated than that and the history of our voting system speaks to that. Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about. The foundation of your argument is also flawed; if rural areas are so overrepresented then we'd be seeing a lot more emphasis on the funding of rural schools, hospital systems, clean drinking water, and broadband. Instead, these issues are regularly underfunded and are even joked about on forums like this. There's lots of issues in the US to solve. Voting, imo, is just the pet issue of the losing party.
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    > Purely popular voting, as in a pure democracy, is demonstrably flawed - that's why representative democracy came about Every form of democracy is flawed, and it's important to be aware of them. Otherwise things tend to kinda spiral out of control, which they arguably already have in a lot of western nations with wanton corruption and completely insane people getting elected.