this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
993 points (91.3% liked)

General Discussion

12066 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So you can't give an example?

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 8 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?