• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    People in flyover states do have legitimate concerns that are not priorities in California, Texas, and New York. Massively increasing the size of the House solves the problem with the tiny states where there are fewer people per representative in the small states, while preserving some power for them in the Senate.

    If you only did representative by population, Wyoming and Vermont would essentially be cut out of the national political process entirely. The tyranny of the majority can be a dangerous thing.

    • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d like to understand how this would be a bad thing, I’m struggling to come up with an example.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s because you have a limited view of the world based on your circumstances. You, like most of us, don’t understand other people’s needs aren’t the same as yours.

        Therefore, we should make sure that everyone has a voice when decisions are being made. The tyranny of the majority is a dangerous thing. Unfiltered mob rule is no way to construct a society.

          • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Certain firearm restrictions are an example. Nobody living in downtown Chicago needs a high-powered rifle in their home. So according to many people owning them should be outlawed.

            But someone living in rural areas may legitimately need firearms for hunting, dealing with predators or hogs, or self-defense because the nearest law enforcement is 30 miles away.

            • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Most people just want common sense regulation on guns, not an outright ban, and it can be more specific to cater more strict regulation potentially depending on density.

              • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                So what you’re saying is that a one-size-fits-all solution isn’t realistic, but we should have a national government that’s not designed to give voice to those who live in less-populous areas and therefore have different needs than those in High-population areas?