I think every human being should be given equal weight. Do you disagree? If so, what is your standard for deciding that one person should be given more of a voice than another?
Tyranny of the majority can manifest itself in a lot of different ways. That's one of them.
That's really not that hard of a question to answer, if you're willing to have some empathy and look at things from someone else's point of view. I say that as someone who has always lived in a large city.
Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degree of self-determination and a real say in how they are governed.
Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
> Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
Yes, like how small towns are dominating the politics of cities by being heavily favored in elections, oh those poor small towns. Tyranny of the minority indeed. Small communities aren't being trampled upon, they're the ones doing the trampling.
A fair system would be one where everyone's vote is equal, not one where people count less because they live too closely together. Rural voters currently have far far too much power given their numbers. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 votes in California, and you're claiming small towns are the victims? Really?
lol. You have an hilariously parochial point of view.
>> What rights are being trampled on here?
> Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degree of self-determination and a real say in how they are governed. Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
That's rich and hilariously wrong. My choice of words reflected the original question.
> tyranny of the minority
If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic.
That's an odd way to complain about not being utterly dominant.
> We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e. currently the majority is being damned.
That's a pretty myopic read of the situation, and not very valuable. The solution to something like Trump is not to create a permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland, which really seems like your desired outcome.
Loss of privilege is not oppression, making the system more fair where all votes are equal does not make the system unfair to rural folk and does not disenfranchise them. You use words you don't seem to understand the meaning of, the only people disenfranchised right now are urban people. Treating every vote equally does not disenfranchise anyone.
But we're not talking about rights. We're talking about how voices are weighted within the democratic portion of our system. If a group is really into stepping on the rights of others, and that group includes rural voters, it's going to get further than a group that doesn't.
"Tyranny of the majority" is a problem, but weighting things so that we're making decisions based on a different arbitrary group is not the way to avert it.