[familyofman]

"Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?"

Fairer for who? Looks like someone is trying to 'rig the system' to get a desired result. Why should a citizen have less of a vote based on where they live? Why not base it on; income, eye color, height (tall people get 1/2 vote)...?

[supercat]

Fairer for who? Looks like someone is trying to 'rig the system' to get a desired result. Why should a citizen have less of a vote based on where they live? Why not base it on; income, eye color, height (tall people get 1/2 vote)...?

Suppose 100% of the people in NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other cities comprising 51% of the US population want to live under a certain law, and 0% of the population elsewhere does. Which is a 'fairer' approach:

1. The leaders in those cities pass laws which apply to those cities; the leaders elsewhere don't pass such laws.
2. The federal government applies the laws to everyone.

If the people in an area all favor a certain side of an issue, they may be somewhat disenfranchised at the federal level, but this is not necessarily a bad thing: if support for the issue is localized, odds are pretty good it shouldn't BE a federal issue in the first place.