vernon

I have talked to several doctors and not one have said the paper mask that are so popular

does no good .

debeda

What you proposed IS the electoral system. Which is weighted for population. Maybe look up the composition of the electoral college to help you understand.

moldyoldy

I am glad you said that.

straightUp Loc: California

The states already have representation through the Senate. Every state no matter how small has two senators. This is why we have two chambers in Congress. The Senate represents the states and the House represents the people.


And people flung across the countryside have little to no awareness of the needs of every industry you haven't mentioned.


Yeah, I keep hearing this... I honestly think you country folks are overestimating your importance. Perhaps it's an effort to validate yourselves, I don't know. What I do know is that a lot of food in city restaurants and markets are imported and the major cities have the commercial power to encourage states to negotiate trade with other countries, unless the federal government interferes with trade tariffs.

That being said... I'm really not trying to marginalize the farmer. But you are trying to marginalize the city dweller and I'm just saying there's really no basis for that.


I strongly disagree with your opinion. The vast majority of highly educated professionals are in the cities not the country. This includes most of the doctors, almost all the scientists and pretty much all the engineers. When I helped develop software that allows combines to be guided by satellite links (for more efficient coverage) I was effectively changing the way farmers work and I was in the city. Even the satellites themselves are designed by engineers in the city. My dad was an aerospace engineer who helped design the rocket boosters that put satellites in orbit and this was in Los Angeles.

The fact is farmers are increasingly dependent on new technologies to improve their yields and almost all of that technology comes from cities.

As for self-reliance I don't see any difference. People in the city have to work to survive just like you folks in the country do. I have in-laws that that live in the county and I know they buy the same groceries that we do in the city. If your telling me that farmers grow their own food, let me remind you that a lot of people in the cities do too. Cities are not all apartments, we have houses too, with yards. I grew up in Los Angeles eating fruits and vegetables grown in the backyard. When I had my house in San Diego we were growing grapes and avocados. People even raise chickens in the city.

There is a LOT of emphasis these days on making cities greener, more sustainable and more self-reliant. And community gardens are popping up everywhere.

But what's more important is that none of this matters. We are talking about representation. Are you saying that people who are not self-reliant should not be represented?


And why would the people in the other states NOT be represented if every district has the same number of constituents? I would urge you think about that for a minute.

Let's look at California for instance... home to some major cities but also some of the most prolific farm lands in the country. In fact, California produces more fruits, vegetables and dairy than any other state in the union, including more cheese than Wisconsin and more peaches than Georgia. Even Japan is heavily dependent on rice grown in California.

Your insistence that we divide things up by state ignores the differences between the needs of differing industries within the state. California is very much a purple state. I know some of your conservative friends on this site live in California. In fact there are more Republicans in California than there are in Texas.

New York state isn't much different... Yes, there's NYC, but what do you see in upstate New York? Farms and Republicans. And since you brought up Chicago... Illinois is huge on agriculture.

Stop over-complicating things... There is zero reason to get in the way of giving every citizen in the country an equal vote.

straightUp Loc: California

Don't get confused. Those doctors were telling you that those paper masks are less effective than other types of masks not that masks do no good. (I've talked to doctors too)

Even paper masks are better than nothing. When it comes down to it, there isn't a mask on the market that can guarantee the virus will not find a path to your system. But seat belts won't guarantee that you won't get hurt in an car accident either. It would be idiotic to use that as an argument to not wear them, because they DO decrease the risk of injury. Likewise, masks DO decrease the chance of infection and when you multiply that by 300 million people, that makes a huge difference.

debeda

My opinion is that you overcomplicate. So heres a simple answer for you. People who live in cities go to grocery stores. What would be their recourse if the stores were empty? People who live in the country go to grocery stores. If the grocery stores are empty they can provide for themselves.
As far as both having their own challenges, you are correct. But the challenges are entirely different, and that is my point.

Seth

Having experienced both, I would have to say that unfortunately, big city reasoning, which seems to pervade "liberal" thinking, rarely sees the forest for the trees.

That's one reason I like reading Anne Zito's columns -- she actually goes all over the country and gets to know people in rural America, and writes about what they think.

straightUp Loc: California

Every citizen gets an equal vote. How is that complicated? When you start dividing things up by state with all these lame excuses about people in the cities not being smart or self-reliant, THATs when it gets complicated.


So do people in the country. What makes you think I don't know that?


I already told you. The state would negotiate trade with Canada or Mexico. What would you country folks do?


Your farms are meant to produce large quantities of specific products. My uncle in Minnesota produces corn and soybeans. For everything else, he either depends on his personal garden (which some farmers have just like some people in the city do) or he goes to the grocery store just like we do.


Yes, they are. So let's dispense with all this pointless blabber about how one group is more critical than the other and take it from your point...

Most states with large urban populations also have significant farmlands. By dividing everyone up by state you are ignoring those differences. You are also ignoring the differences between the needs of different agricultures, like growing corn and wheat in Kansas versus salmon farming in Washington, shrimp fishing in Louisiana and citrus fruits in Florida and California.

The focus on state does not reflect the different needs of specific industries as much as you seem to think. You are suggesting a one-size fits all for each state, but states are varied. If you want the needs of each industry to be heard, it would be better to increase the resolution by using districts instead of states.

Seth

"Liberal" Mathematics, while making perfect sense to "liberals," doesn't quite make it in the realm of reality.

America 1 Loc: South Miami

Somehow you believe that your intelligence is greater than the founding fathers.
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson.
“Those who stand for nothing fall for everything.” “Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many.” “The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Alexander Hamilton.

Seth

straightUp Loc: California

Why don't you educate me then?

straightUp Loc: California

I never said or thought that so I would say your assumption kind of highlights your inability to assess reality.

I do find it interesting how anyone would assume no one can be as intelligent as our founding fathers. It's not like they had IQ tests back then and their accomplishments are only uncommon in that they established a new sovereign nation but even then much of what they designed was based on previous models. I HAVE been impressed by some of the discourse in the Federalist Papers, but no more than what I've read by Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Nietzsche or even contemporary intellectuals such as Chomsky and Stephen Hawking.

I'll just write you comment up as a reverence for our founders, which is perfectly fine.


Wonderful... So who's ignoring the constitution? ...because it's not me.


Awesome... you should make t-shirts.


That depends on the majority. Liberals tend to be more altruistic which is why they try to pass laws to protect those without power, such as minorities, immigrants and even animals. So there is less chance that a liberal majority will oppress the few. The fact that you think a majority will invariably oppress the few suggests that this is what you would do if you were part of the majority.

A less poetic but more rational statement would be "Give all the power to the many and they will have the capacity to oppress the few" But whether or not they act on that capacity is another matter.

This is how democracy works my friend.


That depends on the few in power. Even a king can be benevolent or oppressive, depending on what kind of person he is. And that's how tyranny works.


Just had to throw that in eh? Look, I'm fine with that. I've owned guns since I was 12 and thanks to the 2nd Amendment I never had to worry about losing them. Then again I don't suffer from paranoid delusion either.

Seth

Common sense can't be taught -- if it could, America wouldn't be suffering from the current "liberal" infestation.

Seth

By "protect the few," does that include the way the Democrats have "protected" black Americans?