Hacker News Reader

Comment by oh_sigh | Hacker News Reader

Renters are allowed to vote too. Wouldn't that kind of control only be possible if the number of homeowners and landlords outnumbered the number of renters in a location? In which case it is just majority rule, which doesn't sound so conspiratorial.

View on HN

In fact, unless their landlord resides in the same governing region, the renters are the only ones allowed to vote, on a housing unit by housing unit basis. This is more or less what I was arguing. 70% of residents in NYC are renters. The renters have it within their power to vote in their own interests, but they do not. Instead, more often than not, they support politicians who oppose policies that would produce more housing, and favor homeowners and the lucky few renters who already rent housing that is ideal for them.

I'm sure it's ultimately the Kochs' fault, or whoever. But at some point I really feel like there should be an element of personal responsibility to educate yourself about the forces that affect your economic wellbeing, and of those whose interests you nominally have at heart. If such a large share of renters can't do that . . . well, ideally we should still build more housing, but it's tough as a homeowner to feel too bad about it.

'Majority rule' doesn't imply fair or good. Would you find it a cause worthy of your support to repeal men's voting rights if the 50.7% of the population in the U.S. who are women are for it? Much more extreme examples come to mind, but you get my point.

There's even a snappy quote: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard

Sure - the suffix to "majority rule" is commonly "and minority rights". But my point wasn't even that majority rule is ideal, but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. The important point I was trying to make is that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning - it is merely that they exercise their right to vote their conscience.

> but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance.

But it is not, as my example shows. There's a lot more to it. That's the entire point.

> that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning

I don't think anyone is arguing it is in any way shadowy, it's done very openly. There is sufficient discussion in the media about the practice of voting in the US, so I will not repeat that.

Also, take the Bay Area as an example - how large would you guess is the fraction of immigrants working in Tech? And mind you, even a green card does not allow you to vote. All of these people are excluded from the process.

Ironic, if you think about how this whole country started on 'no taxation without representation'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com