Is malapportionment ever justifiable? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 12, 2024, 07:42:54 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is malapportionment ever justifiable? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Is malapportionment ever justifiable?
#1
No
 
#2
Can have small deviations to preserve communities of interest (without systematically favouring any group)
 
#3
Can have systematic favouring of some groups (e.g. rural electorates)
 
#4
Can have one chamber of a bicameral legislature (e.g. US Senate)
 
#5
Other (please state)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 28

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Is malapportionment ever justifiable?  (Read 2987 times)
Roemerista
MQuinn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 935
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

« on: May 11, 2011, 12:59:47 PM »
« edited: May 11, 2011, 01:01:30 PM by MQuinn »

Well now I need to defend a point I really didn't like!

Regional identity itself is not restricted by political influence of course. As we are biologically wired to care more about pople in your local area and form more bonds.

But, vast territories are the enemy of democracy.

We need to be wary of the tyranny of the masses in overpowering minority opinion. Issues simply do not have the same dynamic across all regions and across all interests. Even with agriculture, yes these areas will have smaller population, but the issues key to their interests and very livelihood may not even be considered as worth while issues to the urban centers.
Logged
Roemerista
MQuinn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 935
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2011, 10:03:48 AM »

"Overrepresenting certain geographically underpopulated areas thus does nothing to block real majority tyranny"

Hogwash. People care more for their local area than they do for any 'larger' interest. Why else do individual congressman gennerally have positive support, but congress negative? Other than that 'we get our own, but everyeone else shouldn't!) If the lesser populated areas were not given an equal voice than they would smiply not be of equal importance. And one cannot possibly make the claim that they are not of 'equal importance' just because less people live there...

Now, an INTERSTING counterpoint one could raise is that in the United States not only are rural areas given more weight than their population, but it appears it is done so to the detrement of more populated areas! Why do urban areas recieve such neglect, and rural populations recieve the benefit of arcane policy? (Besides the fact that it is impossble to get rid of old policy for our brave political class). 

Logged
Roemerista
MQuinn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 935
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.39, S: 5.91

« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2011, 12:57:18 PM »

Yes I am saying that, very much indeed. I was never saying I was defending a pure democratic sentiment, rather a proper tailoring needed to make a democracy viable, well one of such massive size.

This concern is not new, hardly so. If you are interested in perhaps a more credible 'theorist' than a forum poster, Rousseau's Government of Poland at points talks about this issue.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 11 queries.