Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GiddyUp18 t1_j2izrm7 wrote

Reply to comment by defusted in You can make a difference in promoting democracy in Pennsylvania by hashtagbob60

Democrats are all for defending the interests of minorities, except when those minorities are political.

Also, the electoral college is only for the presidency, so that wouldn’t result in no Republican ever holding office again. Not sure what you mean by “get rid of voting districts.” The entire point of our governmental system is representation. Getting rid of voting districts would mean people in Philly voting for politicians that would represent Altoona, places that have distinctly different ideologies. That doesn’t seem very Democratic to me. It seems to me that, in a state that’s as close to 50-50 politically as any other state in the country, you want a political party with a narrow margin to rule over everyone. Why don’t you just make it easier and get the democrats to create one ring to rule them all in the dumpster fires of Philadelphia?

−17

tyrael459 t1_j2joe61 wrote

I like most of your post, but you lost me when you settled for the usual Philly shit talk. As with any massive city, there are incredibly different experiences and areas, and people who are dumb enough (or think their audience is dumb enough) to water it down to a single instance of bullshit lose their credibility in my eyes.

I also have no clue what you mean by “when those minorities are political,” but I would love to know.

8

GiddyUp18 t1_j2jqto3 wrote

What I meant by that statement is that sometimes Democrats are guilty of caring about the interests of minorities, except when those minorities are white, Christian, hillbillies.

−14

GaviFromThePod t1_j2ksyyn wrote

I support the rights of political minorities. Just not their right to rule and push through unpopular policies that fuck over most of the people. Trying to make the government less representative of the will of the voters is the definition of corruption.

7

susinpgh t1_j2k880v wrote

I hear this argument for the way things are apportioned all the time from republicans and how it's unfair for rural districts. Instead, we are dealing with a situation where legislation is being past that is against the will of the majority of voters. That isn't fair either. When this system was first proposed, the majority of the population were living in rural areas. It was never about making sure that the minority had a fair say in legislation or elections. It was always about making sure that the rural communities held sway over city dwellers.

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2m7rfv wrote

And that is exactly why we have an electoral college. Most of the state is rural. Why should two cities decide everything? They don’t know nor do they care what is happening in the rest of the state.

2

susinpgh t1_j2n72dj wrote

Why should the minority decide everything? If that's not fair to Rural communities, then it's not fair to population centers.

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2n8urq wrote

That’s why every county should only get one single vote. Everyone in Philly has the same interest. They don’t each get a vote. We aren’t a direct democracy. What if Philly runs out of water. And they decide to take it from the poconos and pipe it in. Ok let’s put it to a vote. Well there are more people in Philly so we are just going to take the water.

This is why we have a bicameral Congress. One house based on population and one given a set equal amount of votes.

Learn your history.

1

susinpgh t1_j2ncwji wrote

That is absolutist; we're already living this when the counties in the rural areas are dictating gun safety laws that are detrimental to the cities, and also undermining womens rights, setting minimum wage and not allowing additional funding for public transportation.

I understand history enough to know that the current system is inequitable, and your solution of a vote per county is ludicrous.

2

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j2nd6eh wrote

As is yours. Why on earth would my county subsidized your public transportation?

And this is why we have a bicameral Congress.

Thank you for illustrating the point so well.

1

susinpgh t1_j2neb4t wrote

Then why should the majority subsidize your roads? After all, we don't live in your county. That is completely asinine.

2

IrrumaboMalum t1_j2pv3aq wrote

It sounds to me like you want the same thing he wants, you just want it the OTHER way.

You don't want the rural parts of the state dictating how the cities live. That is fair and understandable.

But you seem to be okay with the idea of the cities dictating how the rural part of the state live. That is not fair and is rather hypocritical.

There is no easy solution to this situation.

1

defusted t1_j2j1rs3 wrote

I'm hung over so I'm just gonna call you an idiot and be done with it.

−3

HornetFN t1_j2jg91p wrote

I’ll give you an answer. Because everybody in this sub are left wing idiots that can’t develop a full thought on their own.

−11