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

[Miffinat0r]

I just can't say it's true any other way.

It really feels like we're heading into a state of tyranny of the minority where rural populations and rural states will dictate everything to everyone else and there's no representation that can stop that.

State legislatures are gerrymandered to all hell, and there's no State-Wide Senates within the states. The only offices that are state-wide are the Executive and row offices usually.

Why is this a good form of government? I mean no offense I don't live in an area where there's 30K total people, and all are evangelical.

[Kralljin]

I am by no means a historian of the US constitution, but wasn't that the intent behind the US voting system, that urban areas don't outvote rural ones?

Disregarding that, trying to win over some rural areas shouldn't impossible for democrats but it requires at least some course correction, that's the only way you can stop all that dubious shit from happening.

I recently watched a report on MSNBC, was titled "how Democrats lost rural areas" (or something like that), they also invited a spokesperson from "She the people", who basically argued that democrats shouldn't focus on the voters they've lost (rural areas) but focus on voters they've gained (minorities, especially in urban areas).

Call me silly but if that's your strategy in a game where the rural population is favored, then that's not a winning strategy.

[Miffinat0r]

I am by no means a historian of the US constitution, but wasn't that the intent behind the US voting system, that urban areas don't outvote rural ones?

Disregarding that, trying to win over some rural areas shouldn't impossible for democrats but it requires at least some course correction, that's the only way you can stop all that dubious shit from happening.

I recently watched a report on MSNBC, was titled "how Democrats lost rural areas" (or something like that), they also invited a spokesperson from "She the people", who basically argued that democrats shouldn't focus on the voters they've lost (rural areas) but focus on voters they've gained (minorities, especially in urban areas).

Call me silly but if that's your strategy in a game where the rural population is favored, then that's not a winning strategy.

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.

[Mihalik]

I am by no means a historian of the US constitution, but wasn't that the intent behind the US voting system, that urban areas don't outvote rural ones?

Pretty much this. As the people who wrote the constitution happened to be mostly large landholders and landholding slavers they intentionally created a system meant to favor them.

Much democratic, very enlightened.

[zEmini]

Popular Vote would be one step forward.

[Kralljin]

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

It's more about trying to find a compromise and not further alienate people.
Building coalitions is critical to succeed in politics, if you can't build coalitions, the others will just team up to take you down.

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.

What can i say, that's how the rules were set up 200 years ago, most western, democratic nations either didn't exist or weren't democracies to begin with, their rules are obviously different.

The constitution isn't going to change unless you get enough representation that's willing to change it and republicans sure as shit will not agree to it.

You can either work within the system and attempt to rectifiy that shit as good as you can or you can complain about it which will achieve nothing - and any other alternative involves you moving to a different country or becoming a criminal.

[Miffinat0r]

It's more about trying to find a compromise and not further alienate people.
Building coalitions is critical to succeed in politics, if you can't build coalitions, the others will just team up to take you down.

But the rural populations don't have to compromise to get what they want so what compromise are you suggesting here?

If I can get what I want without having to go through you, why would I go to the table? If anything I'm going to get an outcome I don't want.

That's the issue. There's nothing impeding rural populations in the government because of state legislatures being gerrymandered, and states basically passing representation rules based on land vs where voters actually live.

[Kralljin]

But the rural populations don't have to compromise to get what they want so what compromise are you suggesting here?

I wouldn't necessarily believe that the rural population is 100% on board with everything the republicans do.
It's just that the democrats brand has become so toxic in rural areas that non republican politicans avoid their party affliation at all costs, so one should consider how they can change that.

That's the issue. There's nothing impeding rural populations in the government because of state legislatures being gerrymandered, and states basically passing representation rules based on land vs where voters actually live.

And i'm going to cut this short, if you believe this is a them vs. us issue where it's not possible to reach a compromise then your options are:

1. Leave the States and migrate to another country
2. Overthrow the goverment and forcefully change the rules
3. Kick the rural states out of the union

Option 2. and 3. are obviously treasonous and will likely spark a civil war.
And no, i'm not joking, you can either figure out a way to work with these people or those are your only options to choose from.

[shimerra]

Pretty much this. As the people who wrote the constitution happened to be mostly large landholders and landholding slavers they intentionally created a system meant to favor them.

Much democratic, very enlightened.

Yeah Ural vs urban and land owning vs non-land owning isn't the same thing.


The overwhelming majority of people in the US lived in rural areas. Like 95%. the remaining 5% in cities were still fairly small cities with only a handful having more than 10k people in 1776. This is Including these large landowners and slavers.


Simply put the rural vs urban divide simply didn't exist the same way it does today because fucking everyone was rural. It just so happened later on the system was biased towards low population states. And the people in those areas know and use that to their advantage.

[Fugus]

One interesting fact I have learned that is related to this. A thing called "Prison Gerrymandering" where the prison population is counted towards the area but not allowed to vote so districts are drawn with that in mind and will use them to siphon voters from urban areas to give rural areas more voting power.

We have some districts where as much as 80% of their voting population are in prison and unable to vote. Literally taking someones ability to vote away entirely in order to give someone else even more voting power than they deserve.

[Beefhammer]

Popular Vote would be one step forward.

Yup. States already have equal representation at the Senate level. There is no reason the EC even needs to exist. Even from the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah Ural vs urban and land owning vs non-land owning isn't the same thing.


The overwhelming majority of people in the US lived in rural areas. Like 95%. the remaining 5% in cities were still fairly small cities with only a handful having more than 10k people in 1776. This is Including these large landowners and slavers.


Simply put the rural vs urban divide simply didn't exist the same way it does today because fucking everyone was rural. It just so happened later on the system was biased towards low population states. And the people in those areas know and use that to their advantage.

It wasn't so much rural vs urban as you said it was about small population states being subjected to the wishes of large population states. It's turned into rual vs urban the last 50 or so years.

[Blur4stuff]

It's a terrible design and is causing significant harm to the country.

One positive is that it wouldn't take too much to change republicans minds on this. The truth is, they do not support the EC and two senators per state on principle. They support it because it gives them disproportionate representation. So if that goes away then you'll see them flip immediately. The fastest way to see this happen is for Texas to flip blue. It would almost guarantee that republicans would never win the presidency. The next best thing would be to add DC and PR as states. Uncapping the house would be good, but that's a bit different.

I would love nothing more than to see the EC go away. Failing that, I'd like to see EC numbers more accurately represent population figures.

[Nurasu]

Uncapping the house would be good, but that's a bit different.

This would guarantee the House and the Presidency for the foreseeable future and only requires a simple majority willing to get rid of the filibuster (or 2008; alas) instead of an Amendment.

[tehdang]

I just can't say it's true any other way.

It really feels like we're heading into a state of tyranny of the minority where rural populations and rural states will dictate everything to everyone else and there's no representation that can stop that.

State legislatures are gerrymandered to all hell, and there's no State-Wide Senates within the states. The only offices that are state-wide are the Executive and row offices usually.

Why is this a good form of government? I mean no offense I don't live in an area where there's 30K total people, and all are evangelical.

We could go back to colony-like situation if this is so oppressive to big states. Virginia was a hugely populated state at the beginning, way more concentrated in percentage of (what would become) the United States than California is today. How to get some kind of buy-in from states that could certainly tell a plan for a federal government, "No?"

Yes, how to get that buy in.

Oh, right, structures that let states govern their citizens and make the biggest decisions within their states, and a national government not dependent entirely on population advantage to make decisions.

Yours is the argument for a peaceful, national divorce. A cluster of big states or highly urbanized states no longer is willing to put up with a larger collection of less populous states putting a stop to their dictates. And you couldn't expect smaller states to put up with a compromise removing more of their share of political power, just because some blue states got fussy (and more than rhetoric-fussy).

I don't really think the popular mood is behind huge structural change, if put up for a vote. I think the minority of people really are politically energetic towards breaking with the constitutional system. This would be a great subject for a future national poll, presenting all assorted questions of forced compromise, moderation required to gain majorities, and all the pros and cons asked of Americans across all the states. Rate people's dissatisfaction on a scale with the Senate's rules on 60 for cloture, on each state getting 2 Senators (even the small ones), on no State having less than 1 representative (despite taking away that 1 representative from some states would favor strictly proportional representation). Let that scale be compared to other polled areas, and not just yes/no dissatisfaction, to see if this is a *meh* opinion or true anger.

If I pretend the biggest blue urban areas were totally behind you on injustice and tyranny, then I'd agree that you have the right to declare the current system unsatisfactory and withdraw from it, without war. That's going to cause a lot of chaos, but ask most Democrats that declare the constitutional system unjust, and I think they would bet on the remaining states suffering the worst.

I also think the question is very overblown, with the party controlling Senate and House and Presidency flipping every ~2-4-8 years, and only 12 years since the last Democratic filibuster-proof trifecta. Each party gets a turn. The thinnest minority control begets the hardest political fights, I understand. Also, this forum is the politically-interested-internet-bubble. You're interested enough about politics to post on the internet about it. A hefty chunk of America that may vote and poll towards Democratic options don't participate. They're busy with jobs and kids and local races, and don't truly buy into a nation with a tyranny of the minority. Some only start checking things out around July or August every four years to figure out what the candidates and parties are doing. They have cross-political friendships, they have gripes with radicalism within their own party and the opposite party, but don't actually think the current system is fundamentally unjust to the point of needing fundamental, structural change. They don't really have a voice here, or in mainstream news publications, but they go along to get along, and would only show up if secession from an unjust system is put on the ballot in an election.

[Blur4stuff]

The idea of letting each state determine their own laws is bullshit, however. Abortion is a great example. Right now it may be up to each state, but republicans are already on record supporting banning it nationwide. Republicans are not in favor of states rights. Republicans know they have a dwindling base and want to install themselves as permanent rulers despite having fewer and fewer voters. That's where the EC, the senate, and gerrymandering has led us.

It's not just a national problem, but also a state problem. This further disproves the notion that we should just let states handle themselves. Some states are controlled by a lopsided percentage because of the state legislature/senate being gerrymandered to hell. Wisconsin is a great example.

As for control of the government flipping... it takes a rather monumental effort for dems to gain control. They have to outvote republicans by several percentage points to just have a 50/50 shot at winning control of government. For decades now people have been increasingly siding with democrats as republicans simply become more extreme. It's tearing the country apart.

Republicans don't have to improve. They don't have to come up with better policy positions. They can put up any candidate, no matter how incompetent or corrupt, and still win (Trump, Boebert, Herschel Walker, etc...). That's what this system has produced. It's broken.

We can't keep going on like this. This really ends one of two ways. Either dems flip states like Texas and force republicans to put away their lust for a fascist dictatorship or republicans successfully pull off what Trump and his lackeys tried to do (and are still trying to do).

[PC2]

Honestly I don't think you can let lefty urbanites run a country. They don't like business, they don't like their own country, they don't like success... They can't be put in charge until they adopt the right values.

[Shadowferal]

Honestly I don't think you can let lefty urbanites run a country. They don't like business, they don't like their own country, they don't like success... They can't be put in charge until they adopt the right values.

Honestly I don't think you can let lefty urbanites righties run a country. They don't like business, they don't like their own country, they don't like success... They can't be put in charge until they adopt the right values.
Fixed..

[Edge-]

Honestly I don't think you can let lefty urbanites run a country. They don't like business

Then why are the vast majority of major corporations based out of urban cities?

they don't like their own country

“We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow.”

Al Franken, describing people like you.

they don't like success... They can't be put in charge until they adopt the right values.

Meanwhile, it's actually rural flyover America that seems incapable of attracting these kinds of businesses. Curious, innit?

[Shadowferal]

As if a Trump voter would understand morality.

[PC2]

Honestly I don't think you can let lefty urbanites righties run a country. They don't like business, they don't like their own country, they don't like success... They can't be put in charge until they adopt the right values.
Fixed..

Okay that's fine, Democrats can have most of the power. They will have no other choice other than to strike a reasonable balance between the various stakeholders such as businesses/corporations, the rural population, the urban population, etc.