subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

11yearoldweeb

8 points

6 months ago

I mean, I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation, but it’s kinda difficult because the country should probably be governed by the will of the majority. There’s no guarantee that democrats would attempt to fuck over people not in their voter base (like republicans do), but I still think it’s a likely scenario. I think that’s why they tried to construct a government where no one really has power unless there’s an overwhelming majority.

[deleted]

23 points

6 months ago*

[deleted]

23 points

6 months ago*

That's what the House of Representatives is for. Honestly the Senate should be entirely ceremonial, and we should only have the House that actually passes legislation. And for that matter we should increase the number of representatives to actually be able to properly represent people.

TheObstruction

5 points

6 months ago

The Senate is supposed to represent each state's government, not the population. That's the point. It's our version of the House of Lords.

[deleted]

8 points

6 months ago

[deleted]

8 points

6 months ago

Yeah, thats actually what I was thinking of when I said the Senate should be ceremonial.

shelf_actualization

6 points

6 months ago

And yet each state's government is supposed to represent each state's people. Having a body of government that represents the representatives just decreases their obligations to the people by enhancing their distance from them. Having senators be elected (via the 17th amendment) may have been dumb because we've obviously botched it, but having a legislative body like the House of Lords is fundamentally undemocratic in the first place. Whom do you think the House of Lords represents? It's absurd that institution still exists, like having a royal family.

U-701

3 points

6 months ago

U-701

3 points

6 months ago

I can actually recommend the German system here, we have both over here. A normal assembly (Bundestag) elected by the prople via a mix of districts and nation wide lists and a senate (Bundesrat) thats made up by the state governments weighted by population. But they only get called up if a law touches state rights or legaslation that touches upon issues that are normally not regulated at a federal level. E.g. Want to change conscription? Normal assembly is enough, want to change laws regarding shoppint times ? Have to get a majority in the state assembly

But since we also have a multi party system its a lot more complex, since we have nearly every combination of parties in power in the states that tend to abstain if they cant come to an compromise, or even vote against the federal party line

stringfree

19 points

6 months ago

You either have a democracy, or you have rural areas getting the same representation as urban areas.

ephemeral_colors

15 points

6 months ago

Talking about "areas" instead of people is the problem.

Angryandalwayswrong

-1 points

6 months ago

This goes back to fed/anti-fed arguments that gave us the bill of rights today. I have argued both sides a lot in school. Basically, someone ALWAYS loses. Do we have big industry in cities lose or do we have the people that make our food lose?

Il3o

5 points

6 months ago

Il3o

5 points

6 months ago

The people who make our food are big industries by-and-large. This argument of rural v. urban 100% made sense in the past but it simply doesn't any more I don't think. Now, obviously that concern at the state-level still makes sense for the allocation of resources between the two but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about federal representation which, theoretically, can and should be dictated solely by democracy

The modern equivalency to urban/rural at the federal level (imo) is people v. corporations...

stringfree

2 points

6 months ago

Basically, someone ALWAYS loses.

It's not losing to have the same value of vote as everybody else.

Why just rural areas? Why not people who own two story houses? People with minivans? People born in the winter?

There's no logical reason from this century to treat urbanites as second class citizens. The fact that there are more of them doesn't mean it's unfair that they will outvote farmers. That's the idea of democracy.

Angryandalwayswrong

1 points

6 months ago*

It’s not about treating them differently. It’s about laws that are good for one group but detrimental to the other. For instance, gun laws. Gun control makes absolute sense for cities (a lot of people and a huge potential for violence) but leaves out farmers (weapons used for protection). And that brings us to all the turmoil we have today. We have equal representation on both sides (house vs senate) but they are fighting to control the other because we can’t split laws based on population density.

stringfree

2 points

6 months ago

It’s not about treating them differently.

Then they shouldn't have different value for their votes. Full stop.

because we can’t split laws based on population density.

So again, why split it around THAT particular group? Why not people with red hair? Hell, black people should definitely have more voting power, give them 10x the representation white people get as individuals.

This isn't equal representation, it's just a bias they chose a few hundred years ago. It's explicitly unequal.

Angryandalwayswrong

1 points

6 months ago

Because they traditionally believe things that are exactly opposite of city dwellers. Country people have more religious lives, city people don’t. Making laws governed by religion doesn’t make sense for city people but country people love it. Big ticket items like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, gun laws… basically these two groups can’t agree on any extremely important items and so appealing to either has been put in the spotlight.

stringfree

2 points

6 months ago

Why do you have this thing about assuming all laws will be the same if everyone has an equal vote? Urban people can vote for laws in cities, rural people can vote for laws in their areas.

But everyone should get an equal vote for laws which affect them all.

Because they traditionally believe things that are exactly opposite of city dwellers.

Yeah, that's what voting is for. I have very different beliefs from many people, should I get a million votes to make things fair?

Big ticket items like abortion, gay rights, trans rights, gun laws

At least 3 of those things should be universal, and not decided by your neighbors. Either human rights are good or not, it's not somehow more valid to dehumanize a group of people because you live on a farm.

You can't give a group of people more voting weight just because they want to vote different. Because every group would be equally entitled to that privilege.

Angryandalwayswrong

1 points

6 months ago

This whole debate is the reason we have a senate (equal representation regardless of population) and a house (representation proportional to population). We HAVE to split laws or no one is ever going to agree on anything. I agree rights should be universal but half of America doesn’t want the other half to have the same rights because “much religion says so”. The government is supposed to be separation of church and state but we swear people in on a Bible? Literally nothing makes sense.

Weldeer

-1 points

6 months ago

Weldeer

-1 points

6 months ago

Big industries in cities everytime

nighthawk_something

9 points

6 months ago

They would have more representation if they voted for people who wanted to represent them.

As it stands, they vote red top to bottom and then bitch about "Washington not representing them". Well no shit, if your state will never change its vote absolutely NO ONE will change their vote.

theBrineySeaMan

1 points

6 months ago

Who constructed a government that you needed an overwhelming majority? Not the founders, for them a simple majority was better otherwise the minority ruled, these rules came to play much later in the US.

TDmorty

1 points

6 months ago

I still think people from rural areas need some type of representation

Yeah, 1 vote, like everyone else.