A population density map of WashingtonSubmitted by Pecners t3_zuajkb in Washington
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1ipd26 wrote
Reply to comment by Lost_Sasquatch in A population density map of Washington by Pecners
Why should "landmass" (aka landowners) have disproportionately more say than everyone else in a democratic system?
andthedevilissix t1_j1j628v wrote
In terms of the EC (and the Senate), its' because the US is a Republic, and state's participation in said Republic is in part based on the promise that they won't just be steamrolled by larger population states.
To put this another way, the EU would have a very difficult time getting low pop or small countries to join if they weren't assured of some ability to advance their interests even if those interests were not shared by the high pop or large countries.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1jd6x3 wrote
Yes, that is why the system is the way it is, and it's dumb and bad
andthedevilissix t1_j1jg2ck wrote
Imagine a future where the major population areas are in favor of a populist Trump-style government and we had decided that senate positions should be population-based like the house. WA has remained pretty liberal, but because WA has a low population compared to Trumpist CA and NY (and the rest of the east coast), WA and other liberal states essentially have no say nationally. Do you think the population of WA would benefit from such an arrangement?
Things can change rapidly, it may seem far fetched to imagine a future where a populist rightwing government becomes wildly popular in the big cities - but I'm sure that many people living in the Weimar Republic also thought it'd be pretty far fetched.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1k02bh wrote
I like how you ask us to hypothetically imagine a thing that already happened except at least in your hypothetical the president would have won the popular vote instead of losing it by 8 million
andthedevilissix t1_j1k910m wrote
Truly think about it a bit more, though. The president doesn't make the laws which is why I'm concentrating on senate representation. Having each state with 2 senators makes sure that states can look out for their own interests rather than be subsumed by larger states. If the very large states like California and NY etc all became very Trumpian, and we had a Senate that was population-based, would you feel like Washington had much input?
This is important because people in Washington have different needs, priorities, and concerns than people in New Mexico...right down to natural resource management.
It may help to think of US states the same way that you'd think of individual EU countries.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1kphij wrote
The problem you're talking about already exists, we live in a tyranny of the minority of Republican states' population. You seem to be oblivious to this.
idiot206 t1_j1l7hkz wrote
> its’ because the US is a Republic
The US would still be a Republic without the EC. Most countries are some form of a Republic. Washington State itself is also a Republic.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1irzdh wrote
They shouldn't, they should have more local autonomy.
I was simply pointing out that the issue of rural disenfranchisement was clearly acknowledged on a federal scale but not a state level.
take_my_waking_slow t1_j1it1th wrote
Rural disenfranchisement?! That is the opposite of what the electoral college and US senate do.
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1iv3vv wrote
Thats... literally my point.
It was acknowledged as an issue and addressed by federal and state legislature while remaining largely ignored with regard to ballot measures combined with state preemption.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1j7y81 wrote
Lol, rural areas in Washington already openly flaunt that they don't enforce state laws while also being massively subsidized by King County. If anything they have too much autonomy.
andthedevilissix t1_j1j8tk1 wrote
Which laws would you like to see enforced in rural areas that are not being enforced in rural areas?
chrislongman t1_j1jbgrn wrote
Would be great if we could start with illegal wells.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jc53e wrote
Can you be more specific?
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jcvgy wrote
He's referring to people getting wells drilled on their property without getting a permit/water rights.
andthedevilissix t1_j1jf5xx wrote
Oddly specific thing to be angry about, where's the evidence that it's a major problem? Furthermore, where's the evidence that permitting violations are more common per capita in rural areas than metro areas?
Lost_Sasquatch t1_j1jim1u wrote
It is oddly specific. Especially odd considering it's individuals doing it, not exactly an institutional rejection of higher authority, which is what he was implying before.
invno1 t1_j1jc20v wrote
I believe most recently they're referring to state gun laws.
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1jdfh0 wrote
They know that are and are trying to bait people into an irrelevant gun debate
mr_jim_lahey t1_j1jd1g3 wrote
Are my personal feelings about specific laws relevant to determining whether open flaunting of non-enforcement demonstrates autonomy?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments