Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Pure democratic voting would be just as unfair for different reasons. People who wished to escape densely populated areas and live differently would be held to the whims of voters who happened to be in more populated areas.
Pure democratic voting would allow NY and CA to dictate to the rest of the country.
|
People say this, but it's nonsense. We wouldn't be voting by state any more. There's no reason to cater to "California" because there is no value in winning it as a state.
Yeah, as things stand right now, that means that Dems will campaign hard in cities and the GOP will campaign in smaller towns are rural areas, because that's where the marginal voter are for each of them. But that's kind of what happens now, whereas without voting by state, Dems might actually show up in Houston, San Antonio and Austin and Rs might actually show up in the Central Valley, Orange County or Northern California.
Elections would still be won on the margins, but instead of parochial issues, those margins would be on policy and substance. That's fair. Wyoming getting a veto over national policy is not.
Quote:
|
Reversing it so the people who live around the hipster get to control the farmer is guess incrementally better
|
You admit that it would be better. Why are you writing words?
Quote:
|
You're effectively just saying that people who choose to be more isolated shouldn't have as much say as those who choose to live together.
|
No, we're effectively saying that people who choose to be more isolated have exactly as much say as those who choose to live together.
Threaded Mode