4 ms·

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 decidi

by 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.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  This is an interesting allegory, but it's doesn't seem to mesh with reality. After all, in US voting, n is much larger than 3, and 66% represents a super majority... Can you put into concrete terms? How many times has Philadelphia and Pittsburgh bullied their way into something that the rest of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was so against? I think you'll find that what usually happens is the rest of the commonwealth gets its way, regardless of what the big cities want (because they have the numbers in the state legislatures).
  - jdasdf 3y ago
    I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it. If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades. For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them. On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations? For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?
em-bee 3y ago
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? it would be better to give more independence to the sheep so that deciding what's for dinner doesn't need a majority vote of all of them. if we ignore the obvious outcome that the wolves want to eat the sheep, but simply look at the fact that wolves want meat and sheep want grass, it simply doesn't make sense that the majority here gets to dictate what everyone should eat, instead each group should be able to make their own choice. that means localizing decisions where that makes sense. and not allowing the majority to control resources that a minority depends on. among other things.

by pc86 3y ago

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.
dfxm12 3y ago
This is an interesting allegory, but it's doesn't seem to mesh with reality. After all, in US voting, n is much larger than 3, and 66% represents a super majority... Can you put into concrete terms? How many times has Philadelphia and Pittsburgh bullied their way into something that the rest of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was so against? I think you'll find that what usually happens is the rest of the commonwealth gets its way, regardless of what the big cities want (because they have the numbers in the state legislatures).
- jdasdf 3y ago
  I mean I gave an example in Oregon but you seem to have skipped it. If you'd like a more concrete example, how about we look at the effects that these minority/majority impacts have had on the delegates sent to the presidential college? Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_results_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... As you can see you have several states that have always voted for the same party for decades. For example, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, south Dakota, Utah and Wyoming... Have voted for the republican candidate every single year since 1964. How many Democrats live in those states? These are literally millions of people who by virtue of being a minority have had exactly zero agency in who will rule over them. On a more local level, how many regulations are voted on by people in cities, but will inevitably affect rural people? Or heck, any people who did not want those regulations? For people being oppressed, who have no actual way to prevent their oppression, does it really matter if the oppression is being done by a dictator or a vote?

em-bee 3y ago

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? it would be better to give more independence to the sheep so that deciding what's for dinner doesn't need a majority vote of all of them. if we ignore the obvious outcome that the wolves want to eat the sheep, but simply look at the fact that wolves want meat and sheep want grass, it simply doesn't make sense that the majority here gets to dictate what everyone should eat, instead each group should be able to make their own choice. that means localizing decisions where that makes sense. and not allowing the majority to control resources that a minority depends on. among other things.