https://www.axios.com/urban-vs-rural-tug-of-war-across-the-u-s-2451982340.html quote As part of a push against "socialistic" policies in big, blue cities like Austin, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session "aimed at curtailing local power," per the Washington Post. A similar dynamic is playing out across the country, the Post notes, particularly in Republican-controlled states where more progressive metropolitan areas are growing in population, and power. North Carolina's controversial "bathroom bill," for example, was targeted at rolling back policies in Charlotte. Pair that with a staggering projection from David Birdsell, a political scientist quoted by CityLimits.org "By 2040, 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states... home to the overwhelming majority of the 30 largest cities... that means 70% of Americans get all of 30 Senators and 30% get 70 Senators." Why it matters: There's a lot of resentment in U.S. politics — and it goes both ways. Rural communities feel their influence waning, while urban areas feel underrepresented. These trends suggest it will only get worse. /unquote Anyone else find the enlarged and bolded section to be a problem. Rocket River
Not in the least. It would be a much bigger problem if the policy for everyone in the 3.8 million square miles of the US was determined by those who live in just 9,683 square miles of the country. That's why we do things the way we do.
It's not about land ownership, it's about protecting the rights of the vast majority of the country who have different living situations. A person living in a rural area shouldn't essentially not matter simply because they live outside of the large metro areas and have different interests than those who do. The 0.002% shouldn't have total control over making policy for the 99.998% and that's what you are arguing for. The fact that the 0.002% have as much power as they do now should be sufficient, why insist that they get essentially all of it?
It was very hard for the Founders to see during their life times how the US would urbanize. Also, part of the reason why our electoral system is designed was to appease slaving owning states into ratifying the US govt. Globally we are seeing the rise of city-states that are reshaping how we govern. In the US, we have 3 metros that produce over a trillion or near a trillion in GDP annually.
When you say . . ."VAST MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY" . . .you are talking about the land because 70% of the Population . . . THE PEOPLE . . . would be the VAST MAJORITY . . would it not? What are you talking about with the .0002% because you are not talking about PEOPLE . . . . . Are you talking about Land space?? Rocket River
I'm talking about the people who live in 99.998% of the country vs the people who live in 0.002% of the country.
But when you say 99.998% of the country . . .you cannot possibly be talking about PEOPLE so you must be talking about LAND MASS . . . . . .. . . . Since the article states plainly that it is 70% of the population which means 70% of the people . . .. . . . Sooooooooo........ you are saying that 99.999% of the land mass needs to be represented? That people who own or live on more land deserves more rights? Rocket River
I'm talking about the people that live in that part of the country. You do realize that people live in the other parts of the country right? I feel I have to ask because it seems at times that people forget that those outside of the major population centers actually exist. Situations like this have always existed. The reason the government is structured as it was is that in 1790 right at half the voting population of the whole country lived in just 4 states. Now that the population is even more concentrated than it was then it's even more important that we have that structure and for the exact same reasons, not less so.
Stupid Article. Stupid Post. Is this not why we have the House of Representatives? Is the OP suggesting we take one of Wyoming, Montana, ect... ect.. Senators and give them to California and New York? Some of you need to go back to jr high Government classes. The Senate was designed to represent the State, not the people. The sore loser leftist now want to gerry mander the senate by population size instead of state boundaries.
So what you are saying is..........I should move to Nebraska where my vote counts 5x more than someone's in Houston
Senate is designed that way on purpose to give states, not people, representation. States are the primary building block of the union. But, I'm not sure it's a good design given the stresses we're putting on it. We have Representatives that represent a district of a certain number of people. Those districts are now being gerrymandered so that the composition of the House will overweight the interests of the party that controls the state and its mapping. We have Senators that represent the state as a whole, and is often carried by the party that controls the state. We have a President that, through the Electoral College, is generally carried by the parties that control the states in winner-take-all apportionments, ignoring state-level minorities, but it is also weighted by state size so tiny states are also ignored. We have a Supreme Court appointed by the President that will reflect a lagging correlation to the Presidents' party affiliation. Minority interests are really poorly represented in a system like this, where most federal leadership is determined by state-level tyrannies of the majority or a fight between the tyrannies of the various states. The one mechanism explicitly designed to represent local (not necessarily minority) interest, the House, is being co-opted by gerrymanderers. It might be working 'as intended' but it is no surprise at all that people are feeling ignored and disempowered.
We built this democracy a long time ago, and we know a lot more about political science now than our Founding Fathers knew then. If we had a chance, we could build a much better mouse trap today. Of course we'd never agree to do that. Our political system actually and literally has to suffer a total catastrophic failure before we'd consent to something better.
Yes... Congress is setup in a way that was meant to appease rural, slave holding states during the ratification of the Constitution. Since the late 1700s... we have urbanized even more greatly and no longer allow slave owning... Perhaps you have an interest in the current system since it is setup to give folks that share your ideology a boost...
Theoretically speaking, if 99% of the people moved to the large cities with 1% of the land, should they have 1% of the vote as well?
Absolutely. Even if 99% of the population lived in Vermont, they shouldn't be making policy that the rest of the country. Again, this is the EXACT reason why we have the system of government that we do.
