6 ms·

Well, this is the case in a lot of countries. On my home country each "state" has a number of representatives according to their population, and just the popula

Well, this is the case in a lot of countries. On my home country each "state" has a number of representatives according to their population, and just the population. This has slowly but surely made it so laws are more and more biased towards metropolitan areas. From someone raised in a rural area it's mind boggling how far this has gotten. I guess this paper adds salt to injury.

newAccount2025 2y ago
Why should laws favor rural regions instead of people?
- spookie 2y ago
  I understand that, and the fact that basing yourself on population alone is simple and easy to understand. But, your rural areas may be over half of your territory. People living there also matter, and the needs of those territories are very different. Just to bring an example of how the current system backfires: - we need railroads to reopen so we are able to sell produce to our own industry base competitevely - we are always told there aren't enough people here, so no railroads. Even though, the primary objective of those wouldn't be to transport people - we sell our produce to the neighbouring country instead, given it is closer than our own country's industrial hotspots. By selling off raw produce, our country will end up earning less than if it were processed by our own food industry. - without much economic incentive to remain living there, many will emigrate. - less people = even less representative power. The cycle continues... Now, I don't have a solution. It is a difficult problem to solve. One could be to have a higher minimum number of representatives per region, as the lowest populated region only elects 2, 24 times less than the highest populated one. And, just to show how different the political landscape is when compared to the US: the metropolitan regions have voted way more to the far right and far left parties than the rural regions have, which have led to a lot of divisive political outcomes.
switchbak 2y ago
Salt to injury? I give you props for a nicely mixed metaphor there.
- spookie 2y ago
  :)
mmooss 2y ago
In the US, the bias is the other way: Effectively, the Constitution gerrymanders the US Senate in favor of rural populations. Every state gets two senators, so highly urban states with much greater population have fewer senators per person than rural states with much less population. That also biases presidential elections, due to the way the Electoral College is calculated.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Because the federal government was meant to be extremely limited and mostly serve to mediate _actual_ interstate commerce and foreign affairs. The oft ignored 10th amendment left most everything else to states or the people. The system wasn't designed to fairly accommodate the gigantic social benefits, massive regulatory apparatus, and local spending apparatus the feds now get involved in. The people that designed the Senate thought that stuff mostly wildly unconstitutional. If they planned on that stuff being constitutional they'd have likely made the Senate more like the house in composition.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > The people that designed the Senate thought that stuff mostly wildly unconstitutional. Do you have evidence of that? It sounds like an 'appeal to authority' of the small government crowd. > the federal government was meant It was meant to be a democracy, where the people are free to make it what they want.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Yes, see the FDR era and the threatening to pack the courts to change the interpretation to allow progressive reform. The reason why the thoughts of the people that designed our government is relevant is not appeal to authority but to understand the rational to how it was designed the way it was. >democracy The whole point here is the Senate is not a democracy in a conventional sense, but rather distorted on weight of vote per capita.
      - 2y ago

newAccount2025 2y ago

Why should laws favor rural regions instead of people?

spookie 2y ago
I understand that, and the fact that basing yourself on population alone is simple and easy to understand. But, your rural areas may be over half of your territory. People living there also matter, and the needs of those territories are very different. Just to bring an example of how the current system backfires: - we need railroads to reopen so we are able to sell produce to our own industry base competitevely - we are always told there aren't enough people here, so no railroads. Even though, the primary objective of those wouldn't be to transport people - we sell our produce to the neighbouring country instead, given it is closer than our own country's industrial hotspots. By selling off raw produce, our country will end up earning less than if it were processed by our own food industry. - without much economic incentive to remain living there, many will emigrate. - less people = even less representative power. The cycle continues... Now, I don't have a solution. It is a difficult problem to solve. One could be to have a higher minimum number of representatives per region, as the lowest populated region only elects 2, 24 times less than the highest populated one. And, just to show how different the political landscape is when compared to the US: the metropolitan regions have voted way more to the far right and far left parties than the rural regions have, which have led to a lot of divisive political outcomes.

switchbak 2y ago

Salt to injury? I give you props for a nicely mixed metaphor there.

spookie 2y ago
:)

mmooss 2y ago

In the US, the bias is the other way: Effectively, the Constitution gerrymanders the US Senate in favor of rural populations. Every state gets two senators, so highly urban states with much greater population have fewer senators per person than rural states with much less population. That also biases presidential elections, due to the way the Electoral College is calculated.

ty6853 2y ago
Because the federal government was meant to be extremely limited and mostly serve to mediate _actual_ interstate commerce and foreign affairs. The oft ignored 10th amendment left most everything else to states or the people. The system wasn't designed to fairly accommodate the gigantic social benefits, massive regulatory apparatus, and local spending apparatus the feds now get involved in. The people that designed the Senate thought that stuff mostly wildly unconstitutional. If they planned on that stuff being constitutional they'd have likely made the Senate more like the house in composition.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > The people that designed the Senate thought that stuff mostly wildly unconstitutional. Do you have evidence of that? It sounds like an 'appeal to authority' of the small government crowd. > the federal government was meant It was meant to be a democracy, where the people are free to make it what they want.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Yes, see the FDR era and the threatening to pack the courts to change the interpretation to allow progressive reform. The reason why the thoughts of the people that designed our government is relevant is not appeal to authority but to understand the rational to how it was designed the way it was. >democracy The whole point here is the Senate is not a democracy in a conventional sense, but rather distorted on weight of vote per capita.
    - 2y ago