January 08, 2025, 07:36 AM
captain127New York is NOW safer
quote:
Originally posted by konata88:
did the founders imagine that, in such a vast country with much of it still unexplored at the time, population density in cities would reach 1000 per sq whatever vs the whatever it was at the time. The density of population in cities couldn't have been much higher than rural areas.
Whereas now, cities with high density can out vote rural areas leading to disproportionate representation. Seems like there needs to be an amendment to better accommodate the rural areas of a state to be more equal in strength with the dumb city folk.
Actually they did, with the division of power created by the house ( population density based) and the senate ( even distribution of representation per state) and the electoral college
As a thankfully former NY resident the liberal nonsense that spews from the leftist epicenter of the eastern United States ( NYC) drives the legislative train in NY and imposes it’s will on the rest of the state which is actually politically right of center. I had enough and had to leave. Only regret is not doing so sooner
January 08, 2025, 07:47 AM
MNSIGquote:
Originally posted by captain127:
Actually they did, with the division of power created by the house ( population density based) and the senate ( even distribution of representation per state) and the electoral college
I’m fairly certain that every member of this forum is aware of that. It simply has no effect on state level politics which suffer the same urban/rural divides.
January 08, 2025, 01:10 PM
konata88quote:
Originally posted by captain127:
quote:
Originally posted by konata88:
did the founders imagine that, in such a vast country with much of it still unexplored at the time, population density in cities would reach 1000 per sq whatever vs the whatever it was at the time. The density of population in cities couldn't have been much higher than rural areas.
Whereas now, cities with high density can out vote rural areas leading to disproportionate representation. Seems like there needs to be an amendment to better accommodate the rural areas of a state to be more equal in strength with the dumb city folk.
Actually they did, with the division of power created by the house ( population density based) and the senate ( even distribution of representation per state) and the electoral college
As a thankfully former NY resident the liberal nonsense that spews from the leftist epicenter of the eastern United States ( NYC) drives the legislative train in NY and imposes it’s will on the rest of the state which is actually politically right of center. I had enough and had to leave. Only regret is not doing so sooner
But that's at the federal level; not sure how much is done at the state level. By area, this state is largely red. But state gov is super majority blue because of the metro area. City people dictate how rural people should live. Not right. Rural voice are woefully under represented despite having a sizeable population.
Red:Blue is about 40:60 but Blue seems to hold 90% of the power.
January 08, 2025, 09:26 PM
9mmepiphanyquote:
Originally posted by konata88:
But that's at the federal level; not sure how much is done at the state level. By area, this state is largely red. But state gov is super majority blue because of the metro area. City people dictate how rural people should live. Not right. Rural voice are woefully under represented despite having a sizeable population.
Red:Blue is about 40:60 but Blue seems to hold 90% of the power.
The State level is much like the Federal level in regards to the Assembly (the lower house)
Each Assemblyman represents a district composed of about 500,00 people; each State Senator represent an district of about 1 million. Since each representative represents a equal number of people, each person should have equal representation.
That the State government is mostly Blue would seem to indicate that folks who are voting are electing folks who lean Blue
January 08, 2025, 09:49 PM
konata88Still doesn't sound like an equitable system.
What if every district in the state was 51% blue, 49% red. While the at the state level, the ratio 51% blue, 49% red, every representative would be blue. This leaves 49% of the state w/o real representation.
While this may be okay for some things, if it allows the left to put into law things that are unconstitutional (and acknowledge such), then it's wrong and not a good system.
Something about wrong is still wrong even if the majority supports it.
It allows too much abuse by the sick and irrational.
January 08, 2025, 10:45 PM
9mmepiphanyquote:
What if every district in the state was 51% blue, 49% red.
That wouldn't be true if the state is largely Red. Districts are drawn in adjoining areas...you can't reach out and pickup a certain demographic.
They just redrew the districts to reflect population shifts a while back. There was a statewide call for folks who wanted to sit on the committee regardless of political/social/economic affiliation