Should state legislatures give every county a certain number of legislators?

[A18]

This would also help curb the influence of cities. I still prefer 1/5 of an acre to vote myself, but this is fine too.



Say, every county gets to vote for two state Senators, similar to the states in the U.S. Senate.

[A18]

Actually, what would even be better is if you had to own 1/5 of an acre of land to vote for your country's Senator.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Before the one man one vote rulings of the 1960's a number of states approtioned their legislatures on that basis including SC.  Our State Senate still has 46 Senators because we have 46 counties, but  we no longer elect 1 per county.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

you just love curbing democracy, huh Philip?

Admit it, the real reason you have these idiotic ideas is to put at least one house of the state legislature under Republican control.

[Alcon]

Phillip, you seem very fond of fair government until it does something you don't like.

In any case, stupid idea. Here in Washington, we have Wahkiakum County, a tiny county with a small population. There is no reason to give it as much representation as King (Seattle), Spokane, or Pierce (Tacoma) counties.

[A18]

The people in those counties deserve a say in government too. Cities shouldn't run states.

[Alcon]

Wahkiakum County's people have just as much a say as people in the middle of Seattle...the area has its own congressional representation and their votes count just as much towards the final state vote as Seattle votes. There are fewer of them, but then again there are also fewer people.

[A18]

Right. So far away people are making unchecked decisions on their taxes, education, etc.

[khirkhib]

Why not.  Cities make more mone and pay more taxes.  America has been urbanized and it will only become more and more urbanized.  What gives people in rural areas the right to run the state.

In the Dominican Republic, Hippolito, who was an agriculture engineer through training ran a populist campaign in the rural areas of the country and snuck out a win by pairing up with the old facsist party that had lost a lot of power.  His message resonated because Leonel the president from 1996-2000 had focused almost all of his attention on the cities especially Santo Domingo (the capital city with 2 million people 1/4 of the population of the country).  Hipolito's reign was a disaster, super inflation.  He wanted the country to return to an agrarian society.  Small businesses went bankrupt through out the country.  Hippolito conceed the election (to Leonel) this year after only 1% of the vote had been counted.

"es afuera que va"

[A18]

Millionares make more money and pay more taxes. Give them a larger say in government.

People in "rural areas" (in other words, not heavily packed cities) don't need a far away community deciding everything.

I'm pro-business.

[Alcon]

They pay more taxes because they make more money. What you are basically suggesting would end up as facism. Pro-business is different than giving businesses all the political abilities.

I am all for localization on certain things that can be localized. But your system is nuts.

[A18]

Cities also pay more taxes because they make more money.

I didn't say we should give businesses political power.

[J-Mann]

No - my state has 105 counties; we don't need a 210-member Senate.  We've also got counties with extremely low populations, like Wallace County with 1,750 people.  I realize that this works on a national level, but it doesn't make a lot of sense on the county level.  Wallace would be lucky to field two candidates for both seats, while counties like Johnson - with over 450,000 people - would spiral into election chaos.  Our current Senate with 40 members works just fine.  (Republicans outnumber Democrats 3 to 1 in the Senate...we don't need overkill by switching to a county-based Senate.)

Two questions Philip: why do you advocate being a land owner to vote, and how much land do you personally own?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, J-Mann, if it worked like the former SC system it would be 105 not 210 Senators, and that assumes that you had that many counties.  Under the system  that had been in place in South Carolina, I doubt that some of those ultra-low population counties you are worried about would be independent counties, as new counties in SC always had to have enough population that both the new county and the old one(s) it was being formed from had at least 1/124 th of the SC Population.  (124 because that's the number of Representative we had and Representatives were apportied by county as well.  Still, once you get to anything greater than a 100:1 ratio I don't think even the most ardent honest supporter of county-based representation wouldn't say taht something isn't wrong and needs to be fixed, probably by merging small counties if you're going to keep that system.

[opebo]

Rule by yokel is not preferrable.  Do you ever actally go to rural areas Philip? 

[Bugs]

This is the ultimate states rights issue.  Each state must establish its own standards for its legislature.  Universal standards that would make all states the same could only come from Washington DC.  How revolting.  We have fifty completely different state legislatures, as it should be.

[A18]

I didn't mean it should be imposed by Washington DC.

Not being in a city doesn't mean you live in a rural area.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

J-Mann's point taken further: I recall reading in the paper here about a few small towns near my city which had more open city council seats than candidates running for them, I think this would be very common with small counties. Also in North Dakota, one does not need to reside in a county to run for county commissioner of that county. The main reason for this is there are some counties that would have a tough time electing county commissioners (such as Billings and Golden Valley) if it was limited to only residents. This would cause the same amount of problems.

Side note: There's a small "town" that's sort of a suburb of my city called Skyline. It has a population of around 330. According to my paper's article, it also has a mayor and city council. Skyline has no businesses, not even a gas station. It has no police department, or any sort of public service. It has no schools. Everything is provided for by my city, since they are directly connected. It's basically a subdivision which for some reason is considered a seperate town. This brings up the question: what do the mayor and city council do? There are more people in my apartment complex, so it would make more sense to have a mayor of my apartment.

[J-Mann]

Answer my questions, Philip: why are you for this, and how much land do you personally own?

[A18]

I don't own any land.

I'm for this to keep cities from ruling the entire state.

[J-Mann]

I don't own any land.

I'm for this to keep cities from ruling the entire state.

I ask because you've advocated a requirement of 1/5th of an acre to be able to vote.  But you wouldn't meet your own requirement (once you are old enough to vote).  Few people my age would either; I rent my apartment, the bank owns my car...I don't really own anything, especially any land.  That's why it wouldn't make any sense to require ownership of 1/5th of an acre to vote.  Many people in cities, regardless of age, are in my same predicament.

I get it; you want this kind of requirement because then only rural inhabitants would be able to vote, thus only electing Republicans.  That's why it is not a good idea.

[A18]

No, I just don't want cities running everything. There are a lot more Republican counties in this country than Democrat ones.

[J-Mann]

You would give up your vote in order to take the chance that more Republicans would be elected?  I wouldn't. 

"Cities", per se, aren't running things; the majority of the population is, and that's how it should be.  Cities just happen to be where that population is.  The will of cities doesn't always prevail, either, as evidenced by the last election; Rudy Giuliani and George Pataki have managed to be elected with city support as well.

The county maps for 1996 and 1992 show that county allegience isn't set.  The majority supported Bill Clinton both times.

[A18]

You can still vote for the other chamber.

The majority of the population, if confined to a small area, no longer has the right to rule the communities around it.

I know; the counties wouldn't be overwhelmingly Republican. That's not what the idea's for. It would also give Democratic communities a say in Republican states.