Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsnick | Hacker News Reader

It seems crazy that we elect representatives based on geography. Can't we elect representatives based on some other grouping? Why is there an assumption that my interests are aligned with people in geographic proximity to me?

View on HN

Because many of the expenses are localized... Roads, schools, extra sales tax, etc. are all things that a geographically dense group may decide differently from another. Representatives for San Francisco rightly understand that we have different priorities from say the people of Fresno. I understand it's probably not the primary key for how you or I think, but it is a fairly reasonable approximation for spending policies.

That is an argument for local government not for how we elect our representatives to a national body. Do we really want representatives pulling spending to a particular geographic region? It seems to me that people in San Francisco have more in common with people in New York than people in Fresno. Even cities may not be appropriate to divide up the population. Maybe we should divide representation by occupation, education level, or wealth. After all geography is mostly just a proxy for wealth.

A good first step would be proportional representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

"proportional representation" is just another libertarian pipe-dream. Much better to be realistic and accept that there's not going to be a radical change in the mechanisms of how we are represented in government.

The best thing we can do to address gerrymandering is to keep partisans from coming up with zany voting districts which are optimized strictly for their own political benefit.

Cities aren't dead yet. It still makes sense to divide carve out districts according to population centers and geography.

This is literally the reason we have a bicameral legislature. One represents the state, the other represents the local populations.

That's not true. We have a bicameral legislature because the smaller colonies negotiated for it at the start of the Union as a way to increase their power (smaller population -> Senate gives disproportionate power), at a time where the People were largely ignored and the balance of power was among the aristocrats.

Because 200 years ago, when travel and communication was more difficult, this was a reasonable assumption. The problem is that these systems are resistant to change and thus will always be stuck in the past.

Historically this was to ensure that rural areas had equivalent representation to urban centers. Agricultural areas, for example, might have very different opinions about tariffs on foreign products because it would effect their livelihoods in a significant way whereas the city dwellers probably wouldn't notice too much.

Our lives and our industries are tied to the land we live on. It's not just rural and urban: there's coastal and landlocked, desert and forest, tropical and arctic, etc. Each of these areas have unique concerns when it comes to policies that effect their land and the industries that their land lends itself to.

Not equivalent, but superior representation. Rural minorities outvote urban majorities due to the bias in the electoral college / Senate model.

Because without local representation, the representatives will almost always be from wealthy urban centers, and the only time they'll ever be out into communities that need their representation is for photo shoots.

Representatives are always from wealth centers in the status quo.

There's a difference between being from a wealthy neighborhood and being from a wealthy city a couple of hundred miles away. The local guy still has to travel through the rest of his district.

President George Bush of Connecticut was governor of Texas

Hillary Clinton of Arkansas was Senator for New York.

A couple-hundred miles is nothing for a modern carbetbagger.

... Bush's primary residence was in Texas as of the 1970s.

We're talking about state reps here, so moving the goalposts doesn't help you. State reps are usually representatives of a couple of towns and some land. They aren't senators or governors. You can't adequately represent people at that level if you aren't around them and never meet them.

When you live in the country your concerns are a lot different that when you live in the city. It makes sense that each would have their own representative.

This is more or less what corporativism suggests, that geography really doesn't make much sense as a grouping parameter. Corporatism suggests grouping people in a voting area by occupation, usually by way of guilds or unions or the like.

Specifics aside, I fully agree that I'm much more likely to have something in common with a software developer across the state than the school-teacher next door.

    > Can't we elect representatives based on some other grouping?

What other "grouping" is more reasonable than geography? Are we really that atomized as a society that there is no common interest amongst neighbors?

Grouping by geography forces people to segregate and fight against other tribes instead of integrate with broader to society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight

What other grouping would you propose?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com