North American vs. Japanese zoning

Re:North American vs. Japanese zoning by dragonwriter on Friday July 13, 2018 @04:31PM (#17526427)

Well, it (along with the structure of the Senate, the 3/5 rule, and other features of the Constitution) was intended to protect the institution of slavery from expected popular moves to abolish it (a role to which the slave states apparently found it inadequate by the mid 19th century). General limits on government protect against mob rule, disenfranchising particular people to overrepresent others just chooses which particular interests are favored, it doesn't protect against mob rule (it makes it easier, so long as the advantaged groups are part of the mob.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:North American vs. Japanese zoning by dionidium on Sunday July 15, 2018 @04:59PM (#17537046)

Federalism isn’t disenfranchisement. You’re arriving at false conclusions because you’re starting with the invalid — dare I even say motivated? — premise that a system that groups votes is less fair to people who reside in larger groups.

Nobody here is actually making this case. You’re all assuming it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:North American vs. Japanese zoning by dragonwriter on Monday July 16, 2018 @08:06PM (#17546237)

> Federalism isn’t disenfranchisement.

Federalism is not.

Unequal representation is.

The former does not require the latter; the fact that the two are both present in through US system is the result of a deliberate choice to implement systematic selective disenfranchisement along with federalism, not inherent in the nature of federalism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:North American vs. Japanese zoning by dionidium on Monday July 16, 2018 @08:25PM (#17546324)

If I'm understanding your argument correctly, then I think you're still smuggling in an assumption about "unequal representation" that doesn't hold. It isn't inherently unfair to group votes in such a way that two groups get the same number of votes in some domain despite size differences between them. [0]

I think that's an assumption that needs argued for (and one that ignores powerful cultural, historical, geographical forces).

[0] I'm sure we could think of all kinds of situations under which people collectivize precisely because their numbers would be too small to otherwise matter. I wouldn't want to argue that such systems are in principle unfair (and I don't think you would, either).

[ Parent | on HN ]