4 ms·

>Rural areas do not "have no voice" - they have exactly the representative power of their population, the same as urban centers. I'm not sure what makes people

by jdasdf 3y ago

>Rural areas do not "have no voice" - they have exactly the representative power of their population, the same as urban centers. I'm not sure what makes people in or from rural areas thinks that once people live close together their voice should count for less. How is it "right" or "fair" to move to an urban center, take advantage of urban amenities and services, take advantage of that higher salary, and siphon some of that tax money away to rural areas because of nostalgia? 2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh? Have you considered that the key problem here is the lack of direct control that people have over their own lives, causing these sort of situations where you have groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures? I agree, giving people more voting powers just because they live in a certain place isn't the right way to fix this. But the fact that there is a problem is undeniable, and the fact that this inequality in voting helps ameliorate this problem is true as well. The right answer here is to remove power from the state and elected officials, and return it to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it. There is nothing as democratic as everyone choosing for themselves. In the same way we should not have a vote to decide what's for dinner, and the winner means we all eat the same thing, we should not have votes on local and personal matters. Democracy isn't voting, it's agency over what rules you.

pc86 3y ago
Lots to unpack here, and as I said I don't know much about Canada and next to nothing about Japan so this is strictly about the US. > 2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh? Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point. > groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural. > the fact that there is a problem is undeniable For it being undeniable you haven't actually said what the problem is - only a strawman that rural Americans have no agency over their futures which is utter nonsense. > return [power] to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep? The problem is everybody acts like they're the sheep being taken advantage of by big bad government when it's almost never actually the case.
- jdasdf 3y ago
  >Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point. It does, but it seems you've missed. Let me make it clear as day. If there's a country with 3 people on it, where 2 of those people want to oppress the third, there is nothing that the third can do to prevent that oppression. That is a perfectly legitimate outcome of a voting system, and one that occurs often. >This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural. On the contrary. If you've ever been affected by a law or regulation you're against, you've directly suffered from this in regards to that topic. Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This is the problem. >If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep? On the contrary, for it is that power that is being used to oppress.
  - Izkata 3y ago
    > Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. > For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. Northern California is the same, with this proposal to solve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
  - irrational 3y ago
    > For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This goes both ways. In Utah, the urban liberals feel like they are disenfranchised because the majority suburban/rural population of the state consistently votes conservative. Anytime you have a majority (whether that is majority liberal urban in Oregon or majority conservative rural in Utah) you will have a minority that feel disenfranchised.

by jdasdf 3y ago

pc86 3y ago

Lots to unpack here, and as I said I don't know much about Canada and next to nothing about Japan so this is strictly about the US. > 2 wolves and sheep deciding on what's for dinner huh? Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point. > groups of people who permanently have zero effective agency over their futures This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural. > the fact that there is a problem is undeniable For it being undeniable you haven't actually said what the problem is - only a strawman that rural Americans have no agency over their futures which is utter nonsense. > return [power] to where it belongs, those being asked to pay for it either directly, or by being affected by it If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep? The problem is everybody acts like they're the sheep being taken advantage of by big bad government when it's almost never actually the case.

jdasdf 3y ago
>Tired analogy that doesn't actually make any point. It does, but it seems you've missed. Let me make it clear as day. If there's a country with 3 people on it, where 2 of those people want to oppress the third, there is nothing that the third can do to prevent that oppression. That is a perfectly legitimate outcome of a voting system, and one that occurs often. >This applies to approximately 0% of people in the US. Yes there is a small proportion of people who are so poor they can never move away from where they're born. Most of these people happen to live in urban areas, not rural. On the contrary. If you've ever been affected by a law or regulation you're against, you've directly suffered from this in regards to that topic. Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This is the problem. >If democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner wouldn't you want more power in the state and elected officials, so they could protect the sheep? On the contrary, for it is that power that is being used to oppress.
- Izkata 3y ago
  > Indeed, the whole idea of "red states" and "blue states" that is common in US politics kind of shows it happening at a large scale. > For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. Northern California is the same, with this proposal to solve it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
- irrational 3y ago
  > For example I've recently seen news about parts of eastern Oregon wanting to secede and join Idaho, and the primary reason for that is that you have a minority (rural eastern Oregonians) who are permanently disenfranchised with effectively zero agency over the laws and regulations that rule over them, as a result of them being a minority in Oregon. This goes both ways. In Utah, the urban liberals feel like they are disenfranchised because the majority suburban/rural population of the state consistently votes conservative. Anytime you have a majority (whether that is majority liberal urban in Oregon or majority conservative rural in Utah) you will have a minority that feel disenfranchised.