The reason it is set up that way is so that the less populous states have a say in a government that effects them. It is set up to give them a voice on things that uniquely impact them.

Even in today's climate it's necessary that these regions have an actual voice.

I mean 81% of the population lives in urban areas. Should their vote carry 4 times the weight on issues that they know nothing about.

The fact that some states are very right wing (countryside) and other states are significantly more left wing (cities) is going to become a HUUUGE problem later on, if not already.

The cities here are significantly more left wing than the countryside too, it's as far as left as you can go in the big cities lol.

Primate @ 28/11/2018 12:13

The reason it is set up that way is so that the less populous states have a say in a government that effects them. It is set up to give them a voice on things that uniquely impact them. Even in today's climate it's necessary that these regions have an actual voice. I mean 81% of the population lives in urban areas. Should their vote carry 4 times the weight on issues that they know nothing about.

81% of the population should be able to decide what happens in the country. It should be by popular vote.

Herm @ 28/11/2018 12:14

The fact that some states are very right wing (countryside) and other states are significantly more left wing (cities) is going to become a HUUUGE problem later on, if not already. The cities here are significantly more left wing than the countryside too, it's as far as left as you can go in the big cities lol.

Yeah, it's really about cities vs country here too.

JJ @ 28/11/2018 12:00

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 11:26 JJ @ 22/11/2018 13:47 Timmah @ 14/11/2018 10:54 JJ @ 13/11/2018 22:21 Timmah @ 13/11/2018 16:40 Because it is the United States of America, not the United States of California and New York. I'm referring to population but, thanks. :) I know. My response was sarcastic, but each State has 2 Senators because the system is designed for each State to be represented equally, at least on some level. Otherwise, the large States would have full control of everything all of the time. That's not the way our system was designed. It may have been a good idea at one time but I just don't think it is, anymore. The system needs to change. So in other words, you believe that much of America should not have any say in how things are run? In other words, I think it should be based on population. If one state has 39 million people and one state has 800K people, they should not each have two senators. It's very lopsided.

What you are describing is the House of Representatives. If the Senate also worked that way, what would be the point in having the Senate? What you are saying is that smaller states with lower population should have no say in how things work. You may not understand that this is what you are saying, but it is what you are saying.

JJ is clearly pro-city, and fuck everyone else.

Primate @ 28/11/2018 12:13

The reason it is set up that way is so that the less populous states have a say in a government that effects them. It is set up to give them a voice on things that uniquely impact them. Even in today's climate it's necessary that these regions have an actual voice. I mean 81% of the population lives in urban areas. Should their vote carry 4 times the weight on issues that they know nothing about.

I guess they just want us to set things up Hunger Games style. Move to the big cities, or else be our bitch. I mean, to hell with the equal representation premise that this country was founded upon.

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 12:44

JJ is clearly pro-city, and fuck everyone else.

Not that there is anything wrong with having this opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of how things should work. Just because I disagree with it does not mean it is not a valid opinion. Which is why the system is set up the way it is, so that everyone's opinions have a voice in how things work.

I have to admit, from what I have seen and heard, large chunks of the rural parts of Middle America seems to be going through some growing pains.

Isn't it possible to have an economy that works for both the people in the rural and urban areas, and still impliment a one vote per person system?

I do think that going from a republic to a democracy overnight would probably further bridge the massive culture divide between the right and left in your country though.

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 8:48

That's the problem. People on the left say that they are all for equality. Everyone is the same, and no one is better than anyone else. That's great. I have no problem with that. But, the stance on equality for many on the left ends when it comes to people who have different beliefs or opinions than they do, at least politically. In reality, on a political scale, it is "everyone should be equal, so long as they believe as I believe". (disclaimer: this is painted in broad strokes, and I fully understand that everyone on the left does not think or believe this way. I also understand that many people on the right take the same stance and it is "their way or the highway", as well. That's one of the biggest issues right now, as I see it - the anger on both sides leads to less common ground) The government should be representative of all of the people, which necessarily means that it must account for people with differing viewpoints and beliefs. People are going to disagree, and you know what? That's okay.

Like no, everyone is not the same, some people are born better or wealthier.
It's equal rights and opportunity.

What you're describing are stupid people, who are not only on the left.

JJ @ 28/11/2018 11:18

Primate @ 28/11/2018 12:13 The reason it is set up that way is so that the less populous states have a say in a government that effects them. It is set up to give them a voice on things that uniquely impact them. Even in today's climate it's necessary that these regions have an actual voice. I mean 81% of the population lives in urban areas. Should their vote carry 4 times the weight on issues that they know nothing about. 81% of the population should be able to decide what happens in the country. It should be by popular vote.

Luckily our founding fathers disagreed, or the United States wouldn't exist.

Mercator @ 28/11/2018 17:31

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 8:48 That's the problem. People on the left say that they are all for equality. Everyone is the same, and no one is better than anyone else. That's great. I have no problem with that. But, the stance on equality for many on the left ends when it comes to people who have different beliefs or opinions than they do, at least politically. In reality, on a political scale, it is "everyone should be equal, so long as they believe as I believe". (disclaimer: this is painted in broad strokes, and I fully understand that everyone on the left does not think or believe this way. I also understand that many people on the right take the same stance and it is "their way or the highway", as well. That's one of the biggest issues right now, as I see it - the anger on both sides leads to less common ground) The government should be representative of all of the people, which necessarily means that it must account for people with differing viewpoints and beliefs. People are going to disagree, and you know what? That's okay. Like no, everyone is not the same, some people are born better or wealthier. It's equal rights and opportunity. What you're describing are stupid people, who are not only on the left.

People who identify strongly with either side are, by definition, stupid.

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 11:48

Timmah @ 28/11/2018 12:44 JJ is clearly pro-city, and fuck everyone else. Not that there is anything wrong with having this opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of how things should work. Just because I disagree with it does not mean it is not a valid opinion. Which is why the system is set up the way it is, so that everyone's opinions have a voice in how things work.

Nope. Everyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid, and anything that's not set up to favor me needs changed asap.

Honestly, it always has been a rural versus urban thing here.
So much so that this counterbalance was required to get states to join the union in the first place.
Taxation without representation was a whole thing.