5 ms·

If you are from a smaller state, you would think it would still make sense. Otherwise the rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns. The point s

If you are from a smaller state, you would think it would still make sense. Otherwise the rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns. The point still stands about trying to level out concerns between smaller and larger states, which is why it was created with years of debate and a majority even if it wasn't consensus.

whimsicalism 1y ago
I'm from an even smaller political entity than Wyoming, although we don't get any Senate representation at all. It would be beyond absurd to grant us equal voting power to California and obviously not a sustainable way of constructing a political system.
- giantg2 1y ago
  DC?
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    yes
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Surely you see the irony in the guy from DC wanting more direct democracy at a point in the nation's history when "drop a nuke on DC, see if things improve" would probably be a winning ballot measure in most states.
      - cthalupa 1y ago
        Very few of those people have much animosity towards everyday people or even federal workers (as people) living in DC, it's about the politicians.
- blackguardx 1y ago
  You say smaller political entity, but the city of Washington D.C has 100k more people than the entire state of Wyoming...
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    Good point - and also whoops on forgetting that, should have remembered from my DC history class where they drill in that we have a larger population than Wyoming and Vermont yet no rep
mjamesaustin 1y ago
Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair, would be unhappy if we transitioned to a system where all voters have an equal amount of political power. This point is always brought up as if it's inherently bad for rural concerns to get overruled by urban ones, but TOTALLY FINE if urban concerns get overruled by rural ones. Our current system is a crazy double standard, and inherently unfair.
- giantg2 1y ago
  "Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair," Who determines what is fair? Why is it not fair for each state to have equal representation? "This point is always brought up as if it's inherently bad for rural concerns to get overruled by urban ones, but TOTALLY FINE if urban concerns get overruled by rural ones." The urban ones have more power in the house as that chamber is designed to represent the people. The rural states have equal power in the Senate. It might just happen that there are more rural states (just as in the House some states happen to have more people).
  - krapp 1y ago
    What "urban concerns" and "rural concerns" are we talking about, specifically?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      One in my state is solar panel legislation. You can't install solar panels in AZ without a permit and building plans and roof plans. That's all well and good in the city, but here in bumfuck nowhere I built a house with no building plans or roof plans. Why exactly did the majority of city dwellers pass this law without even considering people like me in bumfuck nowhere, who have as much or higher utility for solar panels than even those in urban areas, need to have this regulation? The answer is they didn't even think about us, they just did it. Now I can't install solar panels without producing a bunch of extra paperwork that city dwellers just assumed everyone already has on hand because in the city you're required to file those when you build the house. Due to that and other rules that are half-cocked consideration for rural counties that don't inspect literally anything else, they basically made it the hardest to put solar in the places where it is most practical and has the most impact.
kccoder 1y ago
I'm from a smaller state and I don't think it makes sense. I'll take tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority any day of the week.
- joquarky 1y ago
  It's starting to feel like direct democracy would make better choices than whatever this mess is that we have now.
watwut 1y ago
Urban concerns are steamrolled by the rural concerns. Rural people literally hate and attack urban living people and urban people are supposed to smile and treat them nicely.
toss1 1y ago
>>rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns But effectively giving dirt a vote clearly isn't the solution. When voting maps are made weighted by strict land area they look one way, but weighted by population, they look entirely different, e.g., [0] Or, should Wyoming, with a population of 587,618 as of 2024 [1] really have as many senators as the 39,431,263 people in California [2]? California has nearly five times the rural population of Wyoming [3], yet all rural and urban Californians get only 1.4% of the representative power of anyone living in Wyoming. Does a Wyoming resident really deserve 67X the representation of people in California? I absolutely think rural concerns must be heard and met, but this setup is not right, and is clearly not meeting those concerns. [0] https://worldmapper.org/us-presidential-election-2024/ https://worldmapper.org/us-presidential-election-2024/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California [3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/rural-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/rural-california/
wing-_-nuts 1y ago
I've yet to understand why 'land' should have a stronger vote than 'people'
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Why even have states? Or cities? What purpose do they serve?
  - wing-_-nuts 1y ago
    Why this non-sequitur?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
    Cities have no representation at the federal level, so we can leave those out of the question. Why have states? Why indeed! One answer: to create a level of governmental organization smaller than the federal one that can act as a set of laboratories for legislative and legal experimentation. Another answer: to reflect the fact that not all laws and regulations make sense across a diverse range of climate and geography and demographics and economies. Neither of those answers, however, require states to be considered inviolable sovereign entities, and a lot of us born after 1880 don't think of them that way.
- QuercusMax 1y ago
  Because the rural folks think that "bad people" live in cities. (Don't ask them too many questions about what makes them bad; it's almost certainly bigotry.)
- giantg2 1y ago
  It has nothing to do with land. It's about the political subdivisions that are states, and how those states have differing concerns (can even be seen in the talks about different commerce and trade concerns when the country was formed).
BobaFloutist 1y ago
I'm not going to do the math, but California has a larger rural area, a larger rural population, and a larger number of rural communities than, oh, I don't know, the ten least populous states combined? So at this point we have fewer rural communities overriding more rural communities just because of where state boundaries are draw.

whimsicalism 1y ago

I'm from an even smaller political entity than Wyoming, although we don't get any Senate representation at all. It would be beyond absurd to grant us equal voting power to California and obviously not a sustainable way of constructing a political system.

giantg2 1y ago
DC?
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  yes
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    Surely you see the irony in the guy from DC wanting more direct democracy at a point in the nation's history when "drop a nuke on DC, see if things improve" would probably be a winning ballot measure in most states.
    - cthalupa 1y ago
      Very few of those people have much animosity towards everyday people or even federal workers (as people) living in DC, it's about the politicians.
blackguardx 1y ago
You say smaller political entity, but the city of Washington D.C has 100k more people than the entire state of Wyoming...
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  Good point - and also whoops on forgetting that, should have remembered from my DC history class where they drill in that we have a larger population than Wyoming and Vermont yet no rep

mjamesaustin 1y ago

Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair, would be unhappy if we transitioned to a system where all voters have an equal amount of political power. This point is always brought up as if it's inherently bad for rural concerns to get overruled by urban ones, but TOTALLY FINE if urban concerns get overruled by rural ones. Our current system is a crazy double standard, and inherently unfair.

giantg2 1y ago
"Of course the voters who have much more political power than is fair," Who determines what is fair? Why is it not fair for each state to have equal representation? "This point is always brought up as if it's inherently bad for rural concerns to get overruled by urban ones, but TOTALLY FINE if urban concerns get overruled by rural ones." The urban ones have more power in the house as that chamber is designed to represent the people. The rural states have equal power in the Senate. It might just happen that there are more rural states (just as in the House some states happen to have more people).
- krapp 1y ago
  What "urban concerns" and "rural concerns" are we talking about, specifically?
  - mothballed 1y ago
    One in my state is solar panel legislation. You can't install solar panels in AZ without a permit and building plans and roof plans. That's all well and good in the city, but here in bumfuck nowhere I built a house with no building plans or roof plans. Why exactly did the majority of city dwellers pass this law without even considering people like me in bumfuck nowhere, who have as much or higher utility for solar panels than even those in urban areas, need to have this regulation? The answer is they didn't even think about us, they just did it. Now I can't install solar panels without producing a bunch of extra paperwork that city dwellers just assumed everyone already has on hand because in the city you're required to file those when you build the house. Due to that and other rules that are half-cocked consideration for rural counties that don't inspect literally anything else, they basically made it the hardest to put solar in the places where it is most practical and has the most impact.

kccoder 1y ago

I'm from a smaller state and I don't think it makes sense. I'll take tyranny of the majority over tyranny of the minority any day of the week.

joquarky 1y ago
It's starting to feel like direct democracy would make better choices than whatever this mess is that we have now.

watwut 1y ago

Urban concerns are steamrolled by the rural concerns. Rural people literally hate and attack urban living people and urban people are supposed to smile and treat them nicely.

toss1 1y ago

>>rural concerns just get steamrolled by the urban concerns But effectively giving dirt a vote clearly isn't the solution. When voting maps are made weighted by strict land area they look one way, but weighted by population, they look entirely different, e.g., [0] Or, should Wyoming, with a population of 587,618 as of 2024 [1] really have as many senators as the 39,431,263 people in California [2]? California has nearly five times the rural population of Wyoming [3], yet all rural and urban Californians get only 1.4% of the representative power of anyone living in Wyoming. Does a Wyoming resident really deserve 67X the representation of people in California? I absolutely think rural concerns must be heard and met, but this setup is not right, and is clearly not meeting those concerns. [0] https://worldmapper.org/us-presidential-election-2024/ https://worldmapper.org/us-presidential-election-2024/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California [3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/rural-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/rural-california/

wing-_-nuts 1y ago

I've yet to understand why 'land' should have a stronger vote than 'people'

SoftTalker 1y ago
Why even have states? Or cities? What purpose do they serve?
- wing-_-nuts 1y ago
  Why this non-sequitur?
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago
  Cities have no representation at the federal level, so we can leave those out of the question. Why have states? Why indeed! One answer: to create a level of governmental organization smaller than the federal one that can act as a set of laboratories for legislative and legal experimentation. Another answer: to reflect the fact that not all laws and regulations make sense across a diverse range of climate and geography and demographics and economies. Neither of those answers, however, require states to be considered inviolable sovereign entities, and a lot of us born after 1880 don't think of them that way.
QuercusMax 1y ago
Because the rural folks think that "bad people" live in cities. (Don't ask them too many questions about what makes them bad; it's almost certainly bigotry.)
giantg2 1y ago
It has nothing to do with land. It's about the political subdivisions that are states, and how those states have differing concerns (can even be seen in the talks about different commerce and trade concerns when the country was formed).

BobaFloutist 1y ago

I'm not going to do the math, but California has a larger rural area, a larger rural population, and a larger number of rural communities than, oh, I don't know, the ten least populous states combined? So at this point we have fewer rural communities overriding more rural communities just because of where state boundaries are draw.