4 ms·

Because that’s how the Constitution was written, so that the minority has a voice and Wyoming citizens matter just as much as coastal elites. Very fair

by nxm 4y ago

skinnymuch 4y ago
Being in a document from 250 years ago doesn’t mean anything except it’s in a document that old. Certainly doesn’t make whatever it says about elections free and fair. That defies logic. Explain how the popular vote not mattering for president is free and fair? Why are you choosing only one minority to care about? State citizens of Wyoming? Why not any other minority? Why not minority religions, colors of skin, political views, gender identity, sexuality, disabilities, mental health conditions? What makes not caring about these minorities fair? Why is Wyoming even a state? Have you read up on the politics of how we got to 50 states? Especially the civil war and post civil war time period? How is that fair? How is DC not having a voice fair? How is Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other territories not having any sort of proper voice fair?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Not sure why fairness is the ultimate arbiter. There are obvious reasons why you don’t want sparsely-populated stretches of contiguous territory to feel disenfranchised on account of their smaller population. Fair systems that predictably spin apart are useless.
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    That’s what the discussion was about. Otherwise why is any talking here happening? > There are obvious reasons why you don’t want sparsely-populated stretches of contiguous territory to feel disenfranchised on account of their smaller population. You and others can’t keep saying this stuff as if it’s true by default just because we are brainwashed into this as kids in school and in every day life. Again I ask. Why is that a worry for minority populations but not any of the variety of other minority populations I listed before? If you do feel that populations like lgbtq, different minority skin colors, different mental health conditions, disabilities, also shouldn’t feel dosenfranchised, then how come that’s exactly what’s happening with some of these populations with the current system of giving a ton of power to rural low population conservatives? Like lgbtq, some minorites, etc. It’s contradictory logic. I wonder what exactly would happen if the feelings of these rural people are felt to be disenfranchised. What are the obvious reasons you assert? Why are those reasons better than myself and many others feeling disenfranchised with the current senate and electoral college system who aren’t in rural places?

Because that’s how the Constitution was written, so that the minority has a voice and Wyoming citizens matter just as much as coastal elites. Very fair

by nxm 4y ago

Because that’s how the Constitution was written, so that the minority has a voice and Wyoming citizens matter just as much as coastal elites. Very fair

skinnymuch 4y ago

Being in a document from 250 years ago doesn’t mean anything except it’s in a document that old. Certainly doesn’t make whatever it says about elections free and fair. That defies logic. Explain how the popular vote not mattering for president is free and fair? Why are you choosing only one minority to care about? State citizens of Wyoming? Why not any other minority? Why not minority religions, colors of skin, political views, gender identity, sexuality, disabilities, mental health conditions? What makes not caring about these minorities fair? Why is Wyoming even a state? Have you read up on the politics of how we got to 50 states? Especially the civil war and post civil war time period? How is that fair? How is DC not having a voice fair? How is Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other territories not having any sort of proper voice fair?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Not sure why fairness is the ultimate arbiter. There are obvious reasons why you don’t want sparsely-populated stretches of contiguous territory to feel disenfranchised on account of their smaller population. Fair systems that predictably spin apart are useless.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  That’s what the discussion was about. Otherwise why is any talking here happening? > There are obvious reasons why you don’t want sparsely-populated stretches of contiguous territory to feel disenfranchised on account of their smaller population. You and others can’t keep saying this stuff as if it’s true by default just because we are brainwashed into this as kids in school and in every day life. Again I ask. Why is that a worry for minority populations but not any of the variety of other minority populations I listed before? If you do feel that populations like lgbtq, different minority skin colors, different mental health conditions, disabilities, also shouldn’t feel dosenfranchised, then how come that’s exactly what’s happening with some of these populations with the current system of giving a ton of power to rural low population conservatives? Like lgbtq, some minorites, etc. It’s contradictory logic. I wonder what exactly would happen if the feelings of these rural people are felt to be disenfranchised. What are the obvious reasons you assert? Why are those reasons better than myself and many others feeling disenfranchised with the current senate and electoral college system who aren’t in rural places?