4 ms·

Which is good, since votes shouldn't be worth more depending on where you live.

by jiofj 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago
If you live in a big city then your vote is worth more because of where you live.
- chongli 3y ago
  It's actually the opposite [1]. The largest ridings tend to be in the largest cities and vice-versa. Remote areas like Nunavut and Labrador have way fewer electors in their ridings than the big population centres, by a factor of over 6. So a vote in Nunavut is worth 6 in Brantford. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal_ridings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal...
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Because of the counterveiling effect of representation. I mean in a direct democracy city-specific policies would always win.
oppositesexact 3y ago
It’s funny to hear Canadians complaining about rural areas being underrepresented and Americans complaining about rural areas being overrepresented. I wonder if the real issue is “people don’t want to do things the way I want to do things!”
HappMacDonald 3y ago
They also should not be worth more depending on how many neighbors live nearby you. The balancing act is quite difficult: voting advantage to less populous areas may improve land stewardship (protecting against tyranny of the majority ruining large areas of land due to a minority of people who would have to live with the consequences there) but it would be quite negative to enhance votes to wealthy land owners in particular while doing so (given that a good chunk of the few who live in rural areas own huge amounts of land and thus capital already). I honestly do not know the best solution, and I agree that "citizens in less densely populated areas get more or stronger votes" by itself does little to solve it, but I also guarantee that "everyone gets one vote issue over" also does not solve it.
- rapind 3y ago
  > I honestly do not know the best solution In these cases, usually the simplest solution is best, because none are perfect and trying to "engineer" perfect in politics (and economics) is doomed since there is no objectivity. 1 person == 1 vote
  - everforward 3y ago
    That often ends up completely eliminating several viewpoints and regions from national politics. Who gives a crap about something that affects farmers? There's like 10,000 of them. You could get that many votes with a billboard in a big city. Looking at Canada's population distribution, you could win an election with just 82% of the votes in Quebec and Ontario or 67% of those + British Columbia. The intent of these systems are for the people to be represented in and governed by their province, and their province to be represented in and governed by the federal government. Everyone and everything is equally represented to the governing body above them, but not necessarily to the level above that. Tangentially, the federal government is meant to primarily rule over the provinces, not the people. Laws are supposed to be passed at that level by a majority of the provinces, not of the people. Quebec has every right to pass whatever law it wants to rule over its people, but what right does it have to use its large population to subject Manitoba or Prince Edward Isles to whatever rules it wants? It breeds divisiveness. Why would Nunavut or Manitoba still want to be part of Canada if their votes don't matter in any conceivable way? Even banded together, they're 3.7% of the population and no politician is going to listen to them. Nunavut is 85% Inuit; it wouldn't shock me if their political inclinations are different than Quebec/Ontario both due to cultural differences and geographical differences. Why wouldn't they just try to go back to having their own tribal government, since the federal system has devalued their input to nothing? Federal systems are meant to let provinces emphasize the needs of their own citizens, and to let provinces be unique as a result of their population.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      I think a federal system would be particularly important to Canada where each province has more trade with the US than the rest of the country. The senate is meant to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority, but in Canada its a decorative institution.
soperj 3y ago
They are though in the Canadian system, a vote in PEI is worth almost 3 times more than in BC for example. PEI: 4 MPs for 176,000 people. = 1 MP per 44000 people BC: 42 MPs for 5.43 million people. = 1 MP per 129,000 people.

Which is good, since votes shouldn't be worth more depending on where you live.

by jiofj 3y ago

Which is good, since votes shouldn't be worth more depending on where you live.

robertlagrant 3y ago

If you live in a big city then your vote is worth more because of where you live.

chongli 3y ago
It's actually the opposite [1]. The largest ridings tend to be in the largest cities and vice-versa. Remote areas like Nunavut and Labrador have way fewer electors in their ridings than the big population centres, by a factor of over 6. So a vote in Nunavut is worth 6 in Brantford. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal_ridings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal...
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Because of the counterveiling effect of representation. I mean in a direct democracy city-specific policies would always win.

oppositesexact 3y ago

It’s funny to hear Canadians complaining about rural areas being underrepresented and Americans complaining about rural areas being overrepresented. I wonder if the real issue is “people don’t want to do things the way I want to do things!”

HappMacDonald 3y ago

They also should not be worth more depending on how many neighbors live nearby you. The balancing act is quite difficult: voting advantage to less populous areas may improve land stewardship (protecting against tyranny of the majority ruining large areas of land due to a minority of people who would have to live with the consequences there) but it would be quite negative to enhance votes to wealthy land owners in particular while doing so (given that a good chunk of the few who live in rural areas own huge amounts of land and thus capital already). I honestly do not know the best solution, and I agree that "citizens in less densely populated areas get more or stronger votes" by itself does little to solve it, but I also guarantee that "everyone gets one vote issue over" also does not solve it.

rapind 3y ago
> I honestly do not know the best solution In these cases, usually the simplest solution is best, because none are perfect and trying to "engineer" perfect in politics (and economics) is doomed since there is no objectivity. 1 person == 1 vote
- everforward 3y ago
  That often ends up completely eliminating several viewpoints and regions from national politics. Who gives a crap about something that affects farmers? There's like 10,000 of them. You could get that many votes with a billboard in a big city. Looking at Canada's population distribution, you could win an election with just 82% of the votes in Quebec and Ontario or 67% of those + British Columbia. The intent of these systems are for the people to be represented in and governed by their province, and their province to be represented in and governed by the federal government. Everyone and everything is equally represented to the governing body above them, but not necessarily to the level above that. Tangentially, the federal government is meant to primarily rule over the provinces, not the people. Laws are supposed to be passed at that level by a majority of the provinces, not of the people. Quebec has every right to pass whatever law it wants to rule over its people, but what right does it have to use its large population to subject Manitoba or Prince Edward Isles to whatever rules it wants? It breeds divisiveness. Why would Nunavut or Manitoba still want to be part of Canada if their votes don't matter in any conceivable way? Even banded together, they're 3.7% of the population and no politician is going to listen to them. Nunavut is 85% Inuit; it wouldn't shock me if their political inclinations are different than Quebec/Ontario both due to cultural differences and geographical differences. Why wouldn't they just try to go back to having their own tribal government, since the federal system has devalued their input to nothing? Federal systems are meant to let provinces emphasize the needs of their own citizens, and to let provinces be unique as a result of their population.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    I think a federal system would be particularly important to Canada where each province has more trade with the US than the rest of the country. The senate is meant to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority, but in Canada its a decorative institution.

soperj 3y ago

They are though in the Canadian system, a vote in PEI is worth almost 3 times more than in BC for example. PEI: 4 MPs for 176,000 people. = 1 MP per 44000 people BC: 42 MPs for 5.43 million people. = 1 MP per 129,000 people.