Rural voters should be the only ones that count anyway. They well outnumber urban people, but since urban people are all crammed so densely in a small area, their votes always supercede the rural people because of electoral vote distribution. Its total bullshit that one city decides a whole state. In PA you have the 1.5 million Philadelphia Residents deciding who will serve the other 11.2 million Pennsylvania resident, 95% of which are rural and spread all over.
Take New York, there are only 9 million people that live in New York City and they decide who wins New York despite the fact that there are almost 11 million other people in the rest of the state which is rural.
In PA you have the 1.5 million Philadelphia Residents deciding who will serve the other 11.2 million Pennsylvania resident, 95% of which are rural
If they had any ethics they wouldnt. If you know your client is guilty you should refuse to represent them. There is no law requiring that they are represented. The only law is that they have the right to have an attorney if they so choose. Its up to them to find that attorney, and if they cant or dont, then tough shit
Uh, I believe it's "...or one will be provided for you." Granted I'm not CERTAIN that Gideon v. Wainwright applied to anything apart from those unable to pay for legal representation, but I think the essence is that everyone has the right to it even if they can't obtain it themselves.
The US isnt a democracy. However i believe the voice of 1 million people shouldnt be louder than the voice of 9 million people just because that one million is crammed in one city and gets 75% of the electoral votes
- - - Updated - - -
One is only provided for you if you cannot afford one. If youre a rich scumbag that nobody is willing to defend, then youre out of luck.
Last edited by Orlong; 2016-10-24 at 11:37 AM.
All Im saying is the electoral votes should be distributed evenly. If Philadelphia county has 1 million residents, and the rest of the state has 10 million, then Philadelphia should only get 10% of the electoral votes, and they wouldnt be the ones deciding who represents the other 90% of the state as they do now
Well someone doesn't know how Pennsylvania works, either.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/PA
Also your "1 million counts for 75% and 9 million counts as 25%" is somewhere between "factually false" and "my nine year old niece knows math better than you".
The rural population of the United States is not quite 20%, which means that the urban population outnumbers the rural population by 4:1. Sorry.
https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971
Not that it really matters, because in most States (I think there are two that do it differently), all of the electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who wins the popular vote in the State--so it makes no difference whether the votes come from the cities or the "rural" areas, really.
I mean if he wants to make up some garbage notion that the rural vote should count for more I would counter that by saying it's the people in urban areas--who have to live much more integrated with society--whose votes should be more valued. Of course, his numbers are completely fabricated anyway, so again, it's a moot point.