3 ms·
Because of it wasn't geographic, it would end up going resident centric, and if you think the system is toxic or confusing now, imagine switching it up such tha
by salawat 4y ago
Because of it wasn't geographic, it would end up going resident centric, and if you think the system is toxic or confusing now, imagine switching it up such that your representatives seat was assigned to you like a Social Security Number, and followed you through life. Also imagine that seat's occupant's job, trying to represent a bloc of people sharing little more than an accident of being born in a particular jurisdiction at a particular time, that have spread hither and yon with no geographical anchor to point to and go, "that's where the stuff is happening that I'm here on behalf of".
Physical locality was the primary social constraint when the government was architected. I honestly have a great deal of difficulty imagining any other way of doing things that would make even a lick of sense in terms of information propagation.
- phpisthebest 4y agoThat seems like a False Dilemma there is no technical or logical reason to assume that anything other than geographic would mean you are assigned a seat at birth that would follow you for ever with no ability to "move" to a different seat. Also my comment does not say to forego all geographic basis but more so questioning the idea that we need continuous geographic zones. Maybe 3 counties in Iowa and 3 counties in Texas, and 3 counties in Montana all want for form a new zone....