The US Government is designed to represent rural populations not urban ones

[Xyonai]

I'm surprised some Top Mind hasn't hucked out the 2020 or 2016 electoral map and started shouting 'ALL THEMS RED SPLOTS MEANS I WINS!' while deliberately ignoring population density, as what usually happens when this debate rears its head.

At least it was funnier then people promoting thinly veiled systemic oppressions under the banner of 'muh states rights'.

[The Stormbringer]

Abolish the electoral college and "winner take all" voting systems. Let the popular vote decide. This coming from someone who grew up rural and has lived in mostly rural areas his whole life.

[Miffinat0r]

If we're concerned about rural states tyrannizing urban populations, reduce the power of the federal government. If there's no power there, there's no problem.

But they don't do this just using the federal government. They abuse city populations using the state governments. Again see Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Cities pass laws then the state government, dominated by gerrymandered rural districts, comes in and removes their authority to self-govern because of reasons.

[Muzjhath]

Because what do the democrats need to get a solid majority?
Rural voters.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that rural voters are not getting terribly motivated by discussions about unfair voting systems when they can barely make ends meet.

IIRC 80% of the Population of the United States of America are urban or suburban.

So no, they technically don't need rural voters.

More smaller town voters who vote against their own interests because of racistm dogwhistles? Maybe!

[Kralljin]

So no, they technically don't need rural voters.

You very much "technically" do.

What you mean is "if the US was actually a proper democracy where the actual value of a vote wouldn't wildly swing between state / district, then they don't need rural voters".
But since that's not true, you need them, unless you have a better plan to win a solid majority in the senate, where 120k schmucks from Wyoming outvote all the snobs in San Francisco.

More smaller town voters who vote against their own interests because of racistm dogwhistles? Maybe!

I'm going to repeat myself, but if you believe people vote for republican because they spout racist dogwhistles, you're solely mistaken.

Democrats lost a lot of rural areas in the last 30 years, it's not like racist rhetoric (or its effectiveness) started in the 90's.

[Miffinat0r]

I'm going to repeat myself, but if you believe people vote for republican because they spout racist dogwhistles, you're solely mistaken.

Democrats lost a lot of rural areas in the last 30 years, it's not like racist rhetoric (or its effectiveness) started in the 90's.

Kinda hard to ignore the fact that when their parents were my age now during the 80's and 70's they were mad about forced bussing.

Rural communities aren't about lower taxes, hate to say that.

It's religion, a bit of racism (depending on where you are Northeast little bit of racism, South big big parts of racism), and guns.

The culture has bought hook line and sinker into Machismo Jesus and the American Patriot.

Literally IIRC there was polling done nation wide about tearing down confederate statues, outside of the South know where the proposals were very unpopular? The Rural parts of Appalachia, I wonder why.

[Kralljin]

Kinda hard to ignore the fact that when their parents were my age now during the 80's and 70's they were mad about forced bussing.

There are certainly very much racist elements in there, especially the deep south, but those are also not necessarily reflected of all rural areas.

Just to give some numbers on this front.
In 1996, 1117 rural counties voted for Clinton.
In 2008, 445 voted for Obama.
in 2020, 194 voted for Biden.

If you want to frame this as a issue largely based on racism, then you can explain the drop from Clinton to Obama but Biden lost more rural counties than Obama, which under this PoV makes no sense whatsoever.

Literally IIRC there was polling done nation wide about tearing down confederate statues, outside of the South know where the proposals were very unpopular? The Rural parts of Appalachia, I wonder why.

The issue with the Confederacy is a multi layered one, in particular the Lost Cause Myth, where the basic belief is that the Confederacy seceded not because of Slavery but because of the fear of a too centralized goverment (in other words: State's rights).
While, again, you can't make excuses what the south has done in the 60's / 70's, it's on the other hand very simplistic to view this reverence as an issue purely based on racism, because people have been led to believe that the racist issue (in this instance, slavery) is actually detached from the Confederacy.
This isn't to excuse or justify it, but rather to lay out that the south has bullshitted itself into believeing that the Confederacy can be detached from racism.

But frankly, the underlying tone of your argument across as "these people are racist, why bother campaigning for them", to which i simply respond what i've been saying multiple times: Without them, you're not going to change shit.

Nevermind that i don't see racism as a huge talking point for republicans currently, for example, Hispanics are a racial minorities which currently sees more and more people swapping over to republicans.
In the meantime, the very likely republican candidate for 2024 is a guy who called mexicans drugdealers and rapists when he announced his campaign in 2016.

[bladeXcrasher]

There are certainly very much racist elements in there, especially the deep south, but those are also not necessarily reflected of all rural areas.

Just to give some numbers on this front.
In 1996, 1117 rural counties voted for Clinton.
In 2008, 445 voted for Obama.
in 2020, 194 voted for Biden.

If you want to frame this as a issue largely based on racism, then you can explain the drop from Clinton to Obama but Biden lost more rural counties than Obama, which under this PoV makes no sense whatsoever.

The issue with the Confederacy is a multi layered one, in particular the Lost Cause Myth, where the basic belief is that the Confederacy seceded not because of Slavery but because of the fear of a too centralized goverment (in other words: State's rights).
While, again, you can't make excuses what the south has done in the 60's / 70's, it's on the other hand very simplistic to view this reverence as an issue purely based on racism, because people have been led to believe that the racist issue (in this instance, slavery) is actually detached from the Confederacy.
This isn't to excuse or justify it, but rather to lay out that the south has bullshitted itself into believeing that the Confederacy can be detached from racism.

But frankly, the underlying tone of your argument across as "these people are racist, why bother campaigning for them", to which i simply respond what i've been saying multiple times: Without them, you're not going to change shit.

Nevermind that i don't see racism as a huge talking point for republicans currently, for example, Hispanics are a racial minorities which currently sees more and more people swapping over to republicans.
In the meantime, the very likely republican candidate for 2024 is a guy who called mexicans drugdealers and rapists when he announced his campaign in 2016.

It makes perfect sense, Democrats want federally mandated equal protections for everyone and Republicans want to allow the states to decide who is deemed worthy and who are the outsiders. It's not difficult to understand unless you're purposefully trying to obfuscate.

[Kralljin]

It makes perfect sense, Democrats want federally mandated equal protections for everyone and Republicans want to allow the states to decide who is deemed worthy and who are the outsiders. It's not difficult to understand unless you're purposefully trying to obfuscate.

Aha, so Obama managed to win more rural counties in 2008 because why exactly?

[Edge-]

Aha, so Obama managed to win more rural counties in 2008 because why exactly?

Increasing polarization amongst Republicans, driven in no small part by racial fear. Biden being white doesn't matter, because the Democratic party as a whole has largely been reframed by conservatives as "the party of colored people and those gays" while Republicans triple down on their white, evangelical base.

See the 2016 "muh economic anxiety" shit that ended was largely just a sanitized cover for "my racial anxieties" - https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/...ce-class-trump

I mean, treating the bad-faith arguments of conservatives with any seriousness is kinda equally bad faith.

[Kralljin]

as a whole has largely been reframed by conservatives as "the party of colored people and those gays"

And that's the crux.
People don't elect parties which they feel don't represent them.

And if you're answer is "democrats shouldn't appeal to racists", then i'm going to pull the very questions i asked earlier in this thread.
1. Do you think a significant majority of rural people are (irredeemable) racists?
2. How do you plan to win (and achieve change) without them?

See the 2016 "muh economic anxiety" shit that ended was largely just a sanitized cover for "my racial anxieties" - https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/...ce-class-trump

Because it's a pretty old occurrence that those things surface when economic woes are big, because it enables this shit to become popular.
And even if you want to argue that economic factors aren't at play, then i'll say that Republicans more and more simply rely on portraying democrats as even worse than them.
Where i believe Democrats should ask themselves whether there aren't any areas to successfully combat this narrative or eliminate the elements that enables the republican narrative.

And the sentiment i'm getting in this thread is that many either don't care about this or just see it as vindication because they simply see these people as racist and thus shouldn't be apealled to in any form.

[Machismo]

And that's the crux.
People don't elect parties which they feel don't represent them.

And if you're answer is "democrats shouldn't appeal to racists", then i'm going to pull the very questions i asked earlier in this thread.
1. Do you think a significant majority of rural people are (irredeemable) racists?
2. How do you plan to win (and achieve change) without them?

Because it's a pretty old occurrence that those things surface when economic woes are big, because it enables this shit to become popular.
And even if you want to argue that economic factors aren't at play, then i'll say that Republicans more and more simply rely on portraying democrats as even worse than them.
Where i believe Democrats should ask themselves whether there aren't any areas to successfully combat this narrative or eliminate the elements that enables the republican narrative.

And the sentiment i'm getting in this thread is that many either don't care about this or just see it as vindication because they simply see these people as racist and thus shouldn't be apealled to in any form.

Racists are bad.

Now that that little bit of business is out of the way, we can see why Democrats have lost rural voters. The Southern Strategy was a real thing, where the Republican party made a point to pander to racist asshats in rural areas.

If you really wanted to combat the narrative, you'd stop pinch hitting for racists.

[tehdang]

"What is a human right" is a dumb strawman so you can avoid answering the question. I have to assume you'd be okay with it because it is all too simple to just say "I would not be okay with blacks being treated worse." You think it's a gotcha because you don't want to say it publicly and be chastised for yet another awful viewpoint of yours.

As I said before, you can't recognize differences in what should be called basic human rights, or who has the power to overrule others on it, so it's back to the return of slavery if we can't agree. It's childish political maneuvering made from a weak position of argument, or maybe a lack of a real opinion on it.

Thanks for agreeing that what you say shouldn't be taken seriously and even you know the crap that comes from that keyboard of yours is at best insane.

You got real cute at dodging a real issue at hand by pretending you're in the position to declare what's right, and I must inhabit the position of yielding to whatever you say.

[uuuhname]

And the sentiment i'm getting in this thread is that many either don't care about this or just see it as vindication because they simply see these people as racist and thus shouldn't be apealled to in any form.

okay, I need to tackle this infuriating argument I see conservative make all the time: this deliberately partisan attempt to divide rural and urban folk.

let's get something perfectly clear: there is a stark difference between needs and desires. for one; the things rural people need Vs the things urban people need are the exact same fucking thing. clean air, clean water, uncontaminated food, the exact same amenities and access to services you should get in rural areas that you get in urban ones.

the desires of rural folk to be nationalistic, xenophobic, and just plain old bigoted, are products of the right wing playing to their base desires. that is where I and plenty of other people rather not... you know.... appeal to out right fascists.

because what is the appeal you're talking about here, spell it out for us.

[Kralljin]

okay, first of all I need to tackle this infuriating argument I see conservative make all the time: this deliberately partisan attempt to divide rural and urban folk.

I don't think that's a really conservative talking point to say that there's a difference between rural and urban population.

After all, look at this thread, there's a plethora of, i'm going to assume, urban folks who don't want to governed by rural people.

let's get something perfectly clear: there is a stark difference between needs and desires. for one; the things rural people need Vs the things urban people need are the exact same fucking thing. clean air, clean water, uncontaminated food, the exact same amenities and access to services you should get in rural areas that you get in urban ones.

the desires of rural folk to be nationalistic, xenophobic, and just plain old bigoted, are products of the right wing playing to their base desires. that is where I and plenty of other people rather not... you know.... appeal to out right fascists.

The thing is that you can't just talk about one aspect, of course there are some real bigots especially among the rural population that stir up that shit.

But, as i said, democrats also have to realize that some of their cultural and societal views (even if expressed by only a splinter group of their party) don't fly in rural areas.
And that doesn't make them bigots or xenophobes, it's just that Republicans mercilessly exploit this divide to portray democrats as crazy loony toons.

If you read articles such as that San Francisco has a huge shoplifting problem because California (which is pretty much the posterboy Democrat state) has effectively legalized shoplifting due to a proposition passed in 2014 (Proposition 47), then any Conservative who wants to scare about bunch of rural about "radical democrats" will have a field day about it.
And, just to give a hint on this, that very proposition was supported by Newt Gringrich.

[Endus]

I don't think that's a really conservative talking point to say that there's a difference between rural and urban population.

After all, look at this thread, there's a plethora of, i'm going to assume, urban folks who don't want to governed by rural people.

There's a plethora of people who want to live in a fair democracy, rather than in an oligarchy run by 20% of the population who don't even have any particularly unique outlook that somehow better-qualifies them to be the decision-makers for society as a whole.

Because, again, rural voters make up about 20% of the country. Pick any demographic that makes up 20% of the country, and we'll almost certainly resist that oligarchic proposal for much the same reasons. It has nothing to do with them being rural, it has to do with not wanting a nation governed primarily by a single minority group.

But, as i said, democrats also have to realize that some of their cultural and societal views (even if expressed by only a splinter group of their party) don't fly in rural areas.
And that doesn't make them bigots or xenophobes, it's just that Republicans mercilessly exploit this divide to portray democrats as crazy loony toons.

You're gonna have to be more clear about exactly what views you mean, here.

Because if you're talking about things like "nuclear and wind power are better for society than coal or oil", sure. That's not rooted in bigotry or xenophobia. But I'm pretty sure those aren't the issues you're hinting at, and that for the issues you do mean, yeah. It's gonna be outright bigotry and xenophobia and nothing else.

If you read articles such as that San Francisco has a huge shoplifting problem because California (which is pretty much the posterboy Democrat state) has effectively legalized shoplifting due to a proposition passed in 2014 (Proposition 47), then any Conservative who wants to scare about bunch of rural about "radical democrats" will have a field day about it.
And, just to give a hint on this, that very proposition was supported by Newt Gringrich.

Prop 47 didn't effectively legalize shoplifting. It made it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail. Largely, it made it no longer a felony, and separated it from burglary based on the dollar value stolen ($950 or less, and it's "shoplifting").

[uuuhname]

I don't think that's a really conservative talking point to say that there's a difference between rural and urban population.

it absolutely is, take any argument for states rights. it's the same principal that my needs and rights are somehow different from yours.

After all, look at this thread, there's a plethora of, i'm going to assume, urban folks who don't want to governed by rural people.

The thing is that you can't just talk about one aspect, of course there are some real bigots especially among the rural population that stir up that shit.

rural people don't want to be governed by anyone, period. or rather they think businesses should be the government.

But, as i said, democrats also have to realize that some of their cultural and societal views (even if expressed by only a splinter group of their party) don't fly in rural areas.
And that doesn't make them bigots or xenophobes, it's just that Republicans mercilessly exploit this divide to portray democrats as crazy loony toons.

because of racism, nationalism, and bigotry. unless there is something I'm missing.

If you read articles such as that San Francisco has a huge shoplifting problem because California (which is pretty much the posterboy Democrat state) has effectively legalized shoplifting due to a proposition passed in 2014 (Proposition 47), then any Conservative who wants to scare about bunch of rural about "radical democrats" will have a field day about it.
And, just to give a hint on this, that very proposition was supported by Newt Gringrich.

right. because people think petty theft is the same as invading your home and pulling a gun on you, that doesn't make it rational, hint hint.


IDK I don't especially feel the need to appeal to people who refuse to accept the results of a presidential election they lost. I don't negotiate with crazy people.

[Kralljin]

There's a plethora of people who want to live in a fair democracy, rather than in an oligarchy run by 20% of the population who don't even have any particularly unique outlook that somehow better-qualifies them to be the decision-makers for society as a whole.

Framing the US as a oligarchy in the sense that rural voters are the oligarchs is bit disengenous in the context that they're arguably among the poorest within the US and oligarchy usually refers to a small sect of rich people forming the ruling class.

Because if you're talking about things like "nuclear and wind power are better for society than coal or oil", sure. That's not rooted in bigotry or xenophobia. But I'm pretty sure those aren't the issues you're hinting at, and that for the issues you do mean, yeah. It's gonna be outright bigotry and xenophobia and nothing else.

I don't think that you can categorize every single cultural issue as a "agree with us or you're a bigot" thing.

Because if you think that's the case, then i'm going back to what i said earlier: if you believe these people are past redemption, then the US on the road to hell already, because they're not going anywhere and neither are anyone left of them.

Prop 47 didn't effectively legalize shoplifting. It made it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail. Largely, it made it no longer a felony, and separated it from burglary based on the dollar value stolen ($950 or less, and it's "shoplifting").

It still makes enforcement much more difficult because the police has to let even repeat offenders go, because the threat of any prolonged sentence is gone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/na.../10/10/prop47/

it absolutely is, take any argument for states rights. it's the same principal that my needs and rights are somehow different from yours.

The argument about state's rights is as old as the constitution because that thing left it open to figure that out where the line for state's right are.
Republicans just resort more to it because it favors them, they know they can't get an abortion ban on a federal level but on a state one and since the constitution doesn't explicitly mention abortion, they take it as such and turn it into a state's right issue.

State's right is nothing but a political tool, plain and simple, that thing flips around depending on the issue.

rural people don't want to be governed by anyone, period. or rather they think businesses should be the government.

because of racism, nationalism, and bigotry. unless there is something I'm missing.

Businesses being the goverment has no direct ideological connection to racism, nationalism or bigotry.

Let's be frank, now you're just rambling about your dislike of rural people and don't even bother to differentiate anymore.

right. because people think petty theft is the same as invading your home and pulling a gun on you, that doesn't make it rational, hint hint.

Petty theft is a lot more relatable than your scenario.

[Adam Jensen]

Essentially your solution here is bow down to the rural populations.

The problem is the House was never meant to be capped but it was.

What I think I don't get is why is this system better than other countries? It seems like it's just being clobbered when compared to other western democracies.

I honestly think a parliamentary system like most of the rest of the world has works better.

[Endus]

[QUOTE=Kralljin;53853328]Framing the US as a oligarchy in the sense that rural voters are the oligarchs is bit disengenous in the context that they're arguably among the poorest within the US and oligarchy usually refers to a small sect of rich people forming the ruling class.[quote]

I'm arguing against that. I'm pointing out that rural voters have no business complaining that their voices aren't heard; they're heard. They just make up a minority voice, and that means they're often drowned out, if their interests aren't shared. As they should be.

I don't think that you can categorize every single cultural issue as a "agree with us or you're a bigot" thing.

Because if you think that's the case, then i'm going back to what i said earlier: if you believe these people are past redemption, then the US on the road to hell already, because they're not going anywhere and neither are anyone left of them.

I'm going to repeat; stop dancing around the bush and name actual issues.

I have to assume bad faith unless you do so, because so often this is used as an empty dogwhistle and I have no patience left for entertaining such things.

I've also clearly stated myself that unless the USA can suppress and marginalize fascist and bigoted voices, the country's already doomed and in the process of collapse. So that's not really a contradiction of my general position.

It still makes enforcement much more difficult because the police has to let even repeat offenders go, because the threat of any prolonged sentence is gone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/na.../10/10/prop47/

Deterrent effects are minimal to begin with. If your concern is the prevalence of crime, the only long-term solutions that have demonstrated any real capability to effect lasting change is boosting social support systems and reducing poverty and inequities. If your society is creating significant amounts of crime, it's that society's systems that are the actual contributing vector.