4 ms·

> In November 2020, a wolf reintroduction plan — which included a requirement that ranchers be compensated for livestock losses — passed with 50.9% of Colorado

by dgfitz 2y ago

> In November 2020, a wolf reintroduction plan — which included a requirement that ranchers be compensated for livestock losses — passed with 50.9% of Colorado residents voting in favor. Just 12 counties out of 64 supported the measure, but nearly two-thirds of Denver voters approved I think it’s pretty obvious the people that voted for the measure don’t feel the effects of it, just from that quote alone.

msandford 2y ago
It's very easy to be generous with other people's resources. We see it everywhere. That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House.
- madhadron 2y ago
  No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's still a senate because various groups added states without enough population to pass the bar of statehood in order to get extra votes without having to actually have democratic support.
  - msandford 2y ago
    >> That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House. > No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's nothing really incompatible about these statements. The reason you needed a Senate to get the little states in on the whole deal was precisely the "populous states swamp out the less populous states" problem. I'm pretty sure the rural vs urban divide was already happening even then even if it was smaller in magnitude. I would love to know more about the statehood population minimum you've referred to. Did some googling and didn't find much so a link would be greatly appreciated.
    - madhadron 2y ago
      Look up the admission of the Dakotas. There was a minimum number of people a state had to have to be admitted, but that was ignored in order to pack the Senate.
HPsquared 2y ago
Simply counting votes is such a poor way of making decisions, it doesn't account for the strength of feeling in each voter. 51 people who are weakly in favour of something can steamroll 49 who are vehemently against.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  >51 people who are weakly in favour of something can steamroll 49 who are vehemently against. so you're saying Karen should get more votes?
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  I’d like to hear solutions from you where 49 dedicated people don’t steamroll the lives of 51.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Basically this is why pure democracy doesn't work. There is usually some kind of "moderation" element to temper the wild impulses of the crowd. And anyway, why shouldn't 49 deeply invested people get their way over 51 "meh" responses? That's maximizing utility. And this is usually what happens in practice - focused pressure groups, lobbyists etc press their case and get what they want, beating out average public opinion more often then not. Always has been this way.
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      We already do have the setup at a national politics level where deeply motivated 49 are able to influence the lives of 51 in ways that do irreparable harm. In some cases it’s more like 25 are able to influence the 75 because of how the power structures are setup.
vaidhy 2y ago
Very funny.. where is the compensation money coming from? Taxes, right? Who pays the most in taxes - the people in the urban area.. So, a bunch of people voted to spend their money to ensure wolves are reintroduced and you are saying they do not feel the effects of it? Obviously, there is more far reaching consequences than just money, but that means you need to listen to the experts and take their opinion. If it is just majority opinion, it is clear what the opinion is.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  You must not have read the article. They spend so little in taxes for any given individual it becomes a rounding error.
  - fundad 2y ago
    That's because there are urban areas that are highly populated with people who have more income to be taxed.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      Man this makes me laugh. The people with the money voted to approve a measure the hurts the people without money. People wonder why we have the administration we have.
      - fundad 2y ago
        Lol they voted for a wealth transfer to ranchers, to wolf-rangers and to the handlers who reintroduce the wolves. It’s not like they voted to return rural areas to native Americans.
- giantg2 2y ago
  "Very funny.. where is the compensation money coming from? Taxes, right?" Is it? In other states it comes from the department that oversees fish and game, which is primarily funded from hunting and fishing licenses.
- 2y ago
abracadaniel 2y ago
On the other hand, eliminating wolves has a cost to it, which affects everyone and only benefits ranchers. Which is the more ethical outcome? Privatized gains and socialized losses, or socialized gains and privatized losses.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - abracadaniel 2y ago
    I did. I’m talking about the original elimination and any proposed future removal. It had an ecological impact last time, and it would again if we did it again.
renewiltord 2y ago
Ideally, only people who are affected by things directly should be allowed to vote for them. So I shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, education, or roads for others. And they shouldn't have to do it for me. Then we can release the ranchers from the urban people. Everyone can pay their own risk level in insurance, we can remove social security and Medicare and allow for optional private insurance. Emergency care is tough, but I think it's probably better to let people die than to have someone decide to spend another's money on a third person. Power transmission for the rural is an issue, and for urban people whose power is generated rurally. But I'm sure the power companies can charge appropriately.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait in general? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

by dgfitz 2y ago

msandford 2y ago

It's very easy to be generous with other people's resources. We see it everywhere. That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House.

madhadron 2y ago
No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's still a senate because various groups added states without enough population to pass the bar of statehood in order to get extra votes without having to actually have democratic support.
- msandford 2y ago
  >> That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House. > No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution. There's nothing really incompatible about these statements. The reason you needed a Senate to get the little states in on the whole deal was precisely the "populous states swamp out the less populous states" problem. I'm pretty sure the rural vs urban divide was already happening even then even if it was smaller in magnitude. I would love to know more about the statehood population minimum you've referred to. Did some googling and didn't find much so a link would be greatly appreciated.
  - madhadron 2y ago
    Look up the admission of the Dakotas. There was a minimum number of people a state had to have to be admitted, but that was ignored in order to pack the Senate.

HPsquared 2y ago

Simply counting votes is such a poor way of making decisions, it doesn't account for the strength of feeling in each voter. 51 people who are weakly in favour of something can steamroll 49 who are vehemently against.

fsckboy 2y ago
>51 people who are weakly in favour of something can steamroll 49 who are vehemently against. so you're saying Karen should get more votes?
darth_avocado 2y ago
I’d like to hear solutions from you where 49 dedicated people don’t steamroll the lives of 51.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Basically this is why pure democracy doesn't work. There is usually some kind of "moderation" element to temper the wild impulses of the crowd. And anyway, why shouldn't 49 deeply invested people get their way over 51 "meh" responses? That's maximizing utility. And this is usually what happens in practice - focused pressure groups, lobbyists etc press their case and get what they want, beating out average public opinion more often then not. Always has been this way.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    We already do have the setup at a national politics level where deeply motivated 49 are able to influence the lives of 51 in ways that do irreparable harm. In some cases it’s more like 25 are able to influence the 75 because of how the power structures are setup.

vaidhy 2y ago

Very funny.. where is the compensation money coming from? Taxes, right? Who pays the most in taxes - the people in the urban area.. So, a bunch of people voted to spend their money to ensure wolves are reintroduced and you are saying they do not feel the effects of it? Obviously, there is more far reaching consequences than just money, but that means you need to listen to the experts and take their opinion. If it is just majority opinion, it is clear what the opinion is.

dgfitz 2y ago
You must not have read the article. They spend so little in taxes for any given individual it becomes a rounding error.
- fundad 2y ago
  That's because there are urban areas that are highly populated with people who have more income to be taxed.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    Man this makes me laugh. The people with the money voted to approve a measure the hurts the people without money. People wonder why we have the administration we have.
    - fundad 2y ago
      Lol they voted for a wealth transfer to ranchers, to wolf-rangers and to the handlers who reintroduce the wolves. It’s not like they voted to return rural areas to native Americans.
giantg2 2y ago
"Very funny.. where is the compensation money coming from? Taxes, right?" Is it? In other states it comes from the department that oversees fish and game, which is primarily funded from hunting and fishing licenses.
2y ago

abracadaniel 2y ago

On the other hand, eliminating wolves has a cost to it, which affects everyone and only benefits ranchers. Which is the more ethical outcome? Privatized gains and socialized losses, or socialized gains and privatized losses.

dgfitz 2y ago
[flagged]
- abracadaniel 2y ago
  I did. I’m talking about the original elimination and any proposed future removal. It had an ecological impact last time, and it would again if we did it again.

renewiltord 2y ago

Ideally, only people who are affected by things directly should be allowed to vote for them. So I shouldn't have to pay for healthcare, education, or roads for others. And they shouldn't have to do it for me. Then we can release the ranchers from the urban people. Everyone can pay their own risk level in insurance, we can remove social security and Medicare and allow for optional private insurance. Emergency care is tough, but I think it's probably better to let people die than to have someone decide to spend another's money on a third person. Power transmission for the rural is an issue, and for urban people whose power is generated rurally. But I'm sure the power companies can charge appropriately.

dgfitz 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and/or flamebait in general? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.