Why should the majority be beholden to the political view of the minority because of the geographic distribution of the minority?
There is a reason that virtually every country has some form of multi-level government. And in a multi-level government, non-majoritarian voting at higher levels can help protect the integrity of the multi-level system.
"Two in three Americans (66%) in a June Gallup survey said they favor admitting Puerto Rico, now a U.S. territory, as a U.S. state. This is consistent with the 59% to 65% range of public support Gallup has recorded for Puerto Rico statehood since 1962." https://news.gallup.com/poll/260744/americans-continue-suppo...
The only thing stopping Puerto Rican statehood is the lack of majority rule in the US, and the fact that Republicans are heavily against Puerto Rican statehood. It's a partisan issue: "The majority of Democrats showed support for statehood for both D.C. (61.8%) and Puerto Rico (69.7%)" while among Republicans, only 26.7% supported D.C. statehood and 34.8% supported Puerto Rican statehood.
Although, if you're now switching to argue that the national opinion is _against_ (or at least the republicans would block it), then this actually excellently illustrates the original point that there are decisions which shouldn't be made nationally instead of locally!
So? Majorities are often slim. Just look at US elections. The difference is whether you have majority rule or minority rule.
> Although, if you're now switching to argue that the national opinion is _against_ (or at least the republicans would block it)
I'm not switching, I'm just saying it's a partisan issue, and Republicans happen to be over-represented in the national government due to territorial representation, which is how they're able to block Puerto Rican statehood, against the wishes of the majority. And it's pretty obvious why Republican leaders want to block Puerto Rican and D.C. statehood, because that would likely lead to additional Senate and House seats for Democrats.
Slim majorities mean the outcome of the election is not obvious - it's possible that the vote would have a different outcome.
> I'm not switching, I'm just saying it's a partisan issue
It illustrates the point well regardless.
Puerto Rico should choose independence or statehood, and the Congress should approve either way. Continuance of the colonialist/protectionist status is shocking.
But D.C. was originally not supposed to have any citizens. Only federal government offices, foreign embassies, and monuments/parks/museums. Perhaps Maryland can reclaim part of the district, as Virginia did.
Times change. That ship has sailed. It's the 21st century now, not the 18th.
The "no permanent residents" rule isn't necessarily bad
Us primates need not foist past spoken traditions and hallucinations on the future.
It’s absolutely hilarious that we’re watching Supra-national unions disintegrate (how much longer will Scotland be part of the UK?) but some Americans think a unitary majority-rules government in a country of 330 million people is a good idea. Madness.
Taken to an extreme, would you want a global government that had proportional representation? Most of the worlds population is not located in the geographic location of north America. With large international agreements, should EU, US and China get one vote each, or should it be based on populations?
To take a other perspective, is populate based voting the best system? In the past we had systems based on wealth or families, with the concept being that fairness is about stakes in the political outcome. Why should anyone get a vote if they don't have a stake in the outcome, and if they do have a stake, shouldn't votes be proportional to that stake? Populate based voting makes more sense in time with military drafts where every individual has an identical stake in the political outcome.
Looking at the EU the answer is both more simplistic and more complex. The reason the majority is beholden by the minority is that otherwise it would just be the German empire under a different name. German votes get slightly less power than citizens of other nations, and in return we have a union. It doesn't make Germany powerless, as they have more representatives than any other country, which also make other people upset. Why should Germany get more votes than Luxembourg? Is a system of one country one vote more fair?
I would think those with no/ little wealth have a large stake in the outcome of politics.
Exactly what are you advocating for here?
What "between the lines" stuff are you trying to find?
Someone from Hoboken, New Jersey has a lot more in common with someone from Brooklyn than the latter does with someone from a farm in rural upstate NY.
In theory this is not a big deal because of the 10th amendment and the states having legislatures that provide some level of urban/rural balance. In practice, it's more complicated.
Anecdote: my parents moved to the Virginia side of the DC suburbs in 1989. In 2018, they moved 50 miles to the Maryland side, to be near my wife and our kids. I moved around a lot between high school and now so I didn’t notice it. But my dad (he travels all over the developing world for his career) immediately noticed. (And they both hate Maryland, lol.) He can tell the accents are different. The way people make small talk is different. In his view (as a Bangladeshi and then a Virginian) people are less courteous. When he pointed it out, I couldn’t unsee it. Maryland is the southernmost part of the mid-Atlantic (NJ/DE/PA). Virginia is the northernmost part of the south. Even just looking at places 25 miles on either side of DC, the Maryland side has way more Jewish people and Catholics, and way fewer Asians. (Growing up in northern Virginia in the 1990s, I don’t think I ever met a Catholic. Apparently, Virginia is only 8% Catholic compared to 20% for Maryland.)
FTFY
Given that no policy can be perfect for everyone, why do we think that votes should be proportional to land area and not number of people affected?
If 10 people want A, and 3 people want B, how does geographic distribution even enter into the equation?
Are you suggesting that the minority should rule because of the majority’s “geographic distribution”.
I can’t even tell what you’re advocating for. Minority rule? Anarchy? Democracy were you always win?
No system is perfect. Much control should be local. In zero sum situations, there isn’t a better answer than majority rule. That can be imperfect or even evil, but so can every other approach.
Slavery, AFAICS.