Realistically, geographical representation is important. The low population, rural areas of any state deserve to have a voice, too. Just, not an outsized, disproportionate one that a lot of these shitty maps give them.
The issue si that way more people live in big cities than this ein rural areas. I general humans tend to give more importance to their local issues, and having a proportional vote makes the issues of rural areas go unheard, since the big cities will refer for most of the money to be destined to their issues.
At a glance it makes sense, for most of the money to be deestined to the majority of people but rural areas also need repairs, upgrades, and projects to renovate them, since they are the ones that produce and sustain the big cities (in theory, I know that with globalization it gets a bit muddled). Districts exist to make the voice of those that sustain big cities louder, to make it fairer for them.
However, the travesty that is the US has perverted this notion to create completely manipulated regions for their benefit. I would propose for something like “vote power” to exist, so that each vote gets multiplied with some number that is computed from the population of the region that vote was casted or other significant reasons, and then to add all of those votes.
For example, people living and voting in a small town would have double or triple voting power than those living in a big city. The citi will still get in total way more power, but it would help to balance that difference a bit while not letting those in power to manipulate the districts in their favour. This is vulnerable to those in power to manipulate the vote multipliers, but that is way easier to regulate than imbalanced and weird regions.
But why? Why should that minority get more than some other subset of people, why not people in poverty or people where it never snows or people of color or LGBTQ?
How about ensuring that everyone gets an equal amount of benifit.
It is a way to ensure that everyone gets an equal amount of benefit. As I already wrote, if it were proportional the bit city regions would have way way more voting power than rural areas, and the needs of the rural areas would go unheard, thus them not getting equal benefit.
If by equal you mean proportionate benefit, sure, but in a democracy the minorities get nothing when their ideas clash with the majority, since the majority wins always. Giving them a boost helps balance thing a bit.
I say this again, what US has right now is a travesty of the original idea, there’s other places where this works better. For example, in Spain, the big city regions have more congress seats than regional zones, but it’s not proportional to the population at all, the seat amount is inflated in the rural areas. We don’t have weird ass regions though, the regions are separated in a historical way.
Well, that was spearheaded by politicians, I’m saying cut out politicians.
(edit) Plus that does seem to be people’s go-to example for this, versus, you know, every awful thing where politicians are currently going against a majority of the public. Abortion, war on drugs, etc., not to mention all the things the public just currently doesn’t think about and leaves untouched that end up making us live in a plutocracy.
Draw a single unconditional map, you lose the right to draw it and it goes to an independent group who’ll do it properly.
Don’t give these fascists another chance when they do something unconstitutional.
Don’t have districts, have proportional elections.
Realistically, geographical representation is important. The low population, rural areas of any state deserve to have a voice, too. Just, not an outsized, disproportionate one that a lot of these shitty maps give them.
How does a proportional election remove the ability of rural people to choose someone? Its not a majority wins all election; it’s a proportional one.
The issue si that way more people live in big cities than this ein rural areas. I general humans tend to give more importance to their local issues, and having a proportional vote makes the issues of rural areas go unheard, since the big cities will refer for most of the money to be destined to their issues.
At a glance it makes sense, for most of the money to be deestined to the majority of people but rural areas also need repairs, upgrades, and projects to renovate them, since they are the ones that produce and sustain the big cities (in theory, I know that with globalization it gets a bit muddled). Districts exist to make the voice of those that sustain big cities louder, to make it fairer for them.
However, the travesty that is the US has perverted this notion to create completely manipulated regions for their benefit. I would propose for something like “vote power” to exist, so that each vote gets multiplied with some number that is computed from the population of the region that vote was casted or other significant reasons, and then to add all of those votes.
For example, people living and voting in a small town would have double or triple voting power than those living in a big city. The citi will still get in total way more power, but it would help to balance that difference a bit while not letting those in power to manipulate the districts in their favour. This is vulnerable to those in power to manipulate the vote multipliers, but that is way easier to regulate than imbalanced and weird regions.
But why? Why should that minority get more than some other subset of people, why not people in poverty or people where it never snows or people of color or LGBTQ?
How about ensuring that everyone gets an equal amount of benifit.
It is a way to ensure that everyone gets an equal amount of benefit. As I already wrote, if it were proportional the bit city regions would have way way more voting power than rural areas, and the needs of the rural areas would go unheard, thus them not getting equal benefit.
If by equal you mean proportionate benefit, sure, but in a democracy the minorities get nothing when their ideas clash with the majority, since the majority wins always. Giving them a boost helps balance thing a bit.
I say this again, what US has right now is a travesty of the original idea, there’s other places where this works better. For example, in Spain, the big city regions have more congress seats than regional zones, but it’s not proportional to the population at all, the seat amount is inflated in the rural areas. We don’t have weird ass regions though, the regions are separated in a historical way.
Or have proportional votes on bills directly. Cut out all the distortion, make the will of the people law.
On the other hand, that’s how you get brexit.
Well, that was spearheaded by politicians, I’m saying cut out politicians.
(edit) Plus that does seem to be people’s go-to example for this, versus, you know, every awful thing where politicians are currently going against a majority of the public. Abortion, war on drugs, etc., not to mention all the things the public just currently doesn’t think about and leaves untouched that end up making us live in a plutocracy.
Absolutely, we can do this .
I mean it should always be some kind of removed 3rd party drawing the lines. But nobody in power wants to give that power up.
Needs to be enforced by an independent party, and as we saw in Ohio, the GOP will just go, “Nah, we think we’ll keep it.”