Comments on: Surprise, Surprise, US Political System is Biased Against Green Laws!

By: Chucksars

Chucksars — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:21:46 +0000

It is misleading to say that the political system is biased against green laws, when your article is making the argument that rural communities are biased against green laws. Perhaps the problem is that legislators from the less populous states have not been working toward green reform that includes their constituents as stakeholders, and instead have been holding up a process that they are fearful of.

Of course urban areas need rural areas to survive, but the opposite is true as well. Ultimately we all need to work together or none of us will survive.

By: Chucksars

Chucksars — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:21:00 +0000

Of course urban areas need rural areas to survive, but the opposite is true as well. Ultimately we all need to work together or none of us will survive.

By: Meghan

Meghan — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:50:22 +0000

Then all of those rural voters won’t send you food and energy to fuel your home, body, and vehicles. When the US was established, the urban states realized they needed the rural states to survive. That is why the house is set up by population and the senate is set up by state. If all of the rural states seceded then the US would be in rough shape.

Environmental regulations impact rural states in a much bigger way than urban ones.

By: Meghan

Meghan — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:50:00 +0000

Environmental regulations impact rural states in a much bigger way than urban ones.

By: Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:53:23 +0000

Yeah, if only there was some alternative to the Senate. What we really need is some kind of structure where the number of representatives depends on the population. We could then use this House of Representatives as some kind of check on the Senate. In fact, that would give us two competing forums, one with equal representation for every state and one where the states were weighted by population. If only our founding fathers had come up with such an enlightened way of balancing things. Oh…wait…they did.

Considering laws need to pass the House as well and the house is basically what what is being proposed, I can only assume that people are generally ignorant of the construction of the US system of government. Their opinions on the changes “necessary” to that system are therefore rendered completely invalid.

By: Captain Obvious

Captain Obvious — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:53:00 +0000

By: Roger L

Roger L — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:52:53 +0000

Zachery: You seem to believe that just because a state has more people that its ideas are better for society as a whole. The founding fathers established representative government to protect the states that do not have as many people so that the rich states (as existed in colonial times and today) would not overwhelm the others with ideas and policies that did not recognize societal differences based on location and culture. The low population states are affected very much by environmental policies and these areas (which are typically in what some call the fly over zone)already view the coasts (left and right) as having undue influence on their lives. To cede even more influence to both coasts would further divide the people in the fly over zone who are already up in arms over the undue influence already in place. Don’t look at the Wyoming’s of the world standing in the way of environmental policy look at them as different stakeholders that need their views recognized and reflected in any policy decisions. Other countries especially European ones are not as large nor as diverse in the spread of population nor resources nor differences as the USA. Our uniqueness has to be factored into the decisions made. Or we could just acquiece as some would like to a Socialist totalitarian government (like China) who can make decisions from the elite top (after all does not the elite know better than us mear peons) for all with little if no objection. Then again maybe that’s what you would like it.

By: Roger L

Roger L — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:52:00 +0000

By: The Trutherizer

The Trutherizer — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:44:56 +0000

So they should use he number of seats a state holds as the measure of how much the state representative’s vote is worth. There’s no point in using that metric in presidential elections if it’s not going to have an effect on actual decision making. I would even say that it is not democratic. A Wyoming vote cannot be worth 33 times more than a California vote when it comes down to the actual political business of the day. It’s imbalanced in the extreme if you ask me.

By: The Trutherizer

The Trutherizer — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:44:00 +0000

By: Stephen Crane

Stephen Crane — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:41:30 +0000

No Zachary, it’s not political it’s just that we Americans especially those of us who love to live in the west don’t like people like you telling us how to live.

By: Stephen Crane

Stephen Crane — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:41:00 +0000

No Zachary, it’s not political it’s just that we Americans especially those of us who love to live in the west don’t like people like you telling us how to live.