This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That's Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence in a nutshell.
Then I assume you have an example? Because the case law on redistricting certainly doesn't say that.
The case law on redistricting studiously avoids recognizing that the problem with "one man, one vote" is exactly the problem the Framers recognized when reaching the Great Compromise. Urban and rural populations have different interests. Majority rule is mob rule. Protecting minority interests by creating a bicameral legislature with separate apportionment rules, instituting the electoral college, implementing an independent judiciary, etc. are all moves aimed at preventing "one man, one vote" from being the law of the land.
Every single "strict scrutiny" case overturning state legislation grounded in a "suspect classification" is a concrete and often explicit example of a protected minority being given veto power over state legislation.
[half-baked] Technically, avoiding "one man one vote" as a way to prevent tyranny only works when you combine two or more different "weightings" of the voter base. If some people have more than one vote and others have less than one, all you've done is reduced the number of people necessary for a mob-majority rule, not increased it! So combining some 'one person one vote' bodies with some rural-weighted bodies is a better way of accomplishing a generic anti-tyranny goal than having every vote be rural-weighted.
More options
Context Copy link
Then it sounds like you don't have an example, because that is nothing like what was happening in CA. You are advocating for giving rural voters veto power over ALL legislation, not the tiny minority of legislation that intentionally discriminates against them, as is the case re the equal protection cases to which you refer.
I just gave you all the examples. I can't tell whether you're being deliberately obtuse in hopes of setting some rhetorical trap, or whether I have mistakenly attributed to you a substantial knowledge of the law that you don't actually possess. (For some reason I thought you were a lawyer, but now I'm thinking I must be mistaken about that. If so, my apologies!)
What reason would they have to use a veto power on anything else?
Or maybe more importantly--why are you advocating for rural voters to never have a veto over ANY legislation, even legislation that intentionally discriminates against them? Because that is clearly the result of "one man, one vote."
No, you didn't because, as I said, those are examples of something different: "To make out an equal protection violation, a party cannot merely prove disparate impact—he must "prove `the existence of purposeful discrimination' motivating the state action which caused the complained-of injury." Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing, inter alia, McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 292-93 (1987)). Specifically, "[d]iscriminatory purpose in an equal protection context implies that the decisionmaker selected a particular course of action at least in part because of, and not simply in spite of, the adverse impact it would have on an identifiable group." Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1992))." Allen v. Hays, (5th Circuit No. 21-20337, March 21 2023).
As I said, you are advocating for an absolute veto power, not the limited "veto power" re the narrow set of legislation that violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Are you kidding? Anything that they think does not serve their interests, or anything that they think might harm them (including anything that happens to have an adverse impact), or any culture war issue, for that matter. Or, any project that did not benefit them as much as they wanted. Or any budget that did not fund some useless pork in rural areas. Etc, etc, etc.
I'm not.
Such legislation that did not have a legitimate purpose would be subject to "veto power" under the Equal Protection Clause. If you are arguing that the standard under the EP clause should be higher -- eg, that rural residency should be a quasi-suspect or suspect classification, fine. But you are arguing for something much, much broader: For a certain group to have an absolute veto over ALL legislation.
Why should they be forced to go along with laws that don't serve their interests? The only reason available under "one man, one vote" appears to be "because they are in the minority, so too bad for them." How much more purposeful could discrimination possibly get, than to say "you get no benefit from this law, for no reason than because the majority is able to require that of you?"
Again--what protection do they have against the majority, then? If rural voters think something harms them, under "one man, one vote" that's just too fucking bad. "One man, one vote" is all by itself purposeful discrimination against rural voters, implemented by a court that was clearly dedicated to its own social engineering projects over and above any constitutional principles.
Yes, exactly. Rural voters having culture war issues dictated to them by urban voters was in practice, I think, the point of "one man, one vote." It was purposeful discrimination from the word go.
You haven't listed a single reason that doesn't sound like intentional discrimination against a minority, because they are a minority. Urban voters can veto any project that does not benefit them as much as they want. Urban voters can veto any budget that does not fund some useless pork in cities (like, say, the whole NEH). Etc. Etc. Why shouldn't rural voters have the same power? Ah, yes--because they are the minority. That is literally all "one man, one vote" means: mob rule at the state level. I have a hard time imagining more purposeful discrimination against rural voters.
If you agree with "one man, one vote" then actually yes--you are.
In fact I think the vast majority of legislation is totally illegitimate under a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution. That's kind of the theme of this discussion, though it was not my original intention: that 20th century jurisprudence basically threw the constitutional order out the window, substantially in favor of sweeping and often disastrous social engineering projects.
If that is discrimination then any law enacted in a mostly democratic nation is surely? Stealing is outlawed because the majority of the populace want it to be. Is outlawing theft discrimination against those who want to steal?
If so then it's so broad a term to be meaningless.
And there is nothing to stop rural voters outnumbering urban voters, there is plenty of open space in the US, more people could move to the country and still have it be near empty. If enough people wanted to be rural then they could be.
If rural voters get a veto then urban voters should get a veto and suburban voters, and criminal voters and car salesmen voters and Appalachians and Cajuns and so on and so on.
Laws against theft protect everyone against theft. I have never yet met a thief who was happy to be stolen from.
Sure, in theory. What do you think this shows?
As I note to gdanning below: yes. And not just groups of people, but individuals, too. The vast majority of governance is both unnecessary and coercive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Only if, and because, they are the majority. Not because they are given extra votes due to their status.
And, there are lots of groups in the numerical minority; bookkeepers are a minority of voters; do they get a veto? Why not? What about bus drivers? What about people who live near the beach? They are a minority. So are residents of all sorts of geographic areas, not just those who live in "rural" areas. What about African Americans? Do they get a veto? And Vietnamese Americans? And Mien Americans? And Italian Americans? What about the top 1% - they are a minority. But, so are the bottom 1%. Do they all get vetoes?
No, they don't. We don't give any of those groups a veto, or an extra vote. Again, what is so special about rural voters that they should be given a veto, if none of the other 10,000 numerical minorities don't?
"The majority gets to do those things because they are the majority" is not an explanation, it's you repeating the premise. It's certainly not a constitutional principle. If anything, it violates the constitutional edict that the federal government ensure a republican form of government in each individual state. Republican governments have never in history been "one man, one vote" until the Warren court said so.
Well, yes! This is the true spirit of "equal protection." The end result is intensely libertarian, which is how it should be. The only time the government should act at all is when, by so doing, everyone benefits. Otherwise government is just a grand, complicated exercise in "who, whom."
Did you think this was some kind of persuasive "gotcha?" Here's Ayn Rand:
I'm very much on board with this. Today the Court just picks-and-chooses minorities for special legal protection. Rural voters are out, black voters are in. Mormons are out, Muslims are in. Asians are out, "indigenous peoples" are in. This is legal bullshit of the highest order, a complete abandonment of the rule of law.
Like hell we don't. Black and Hispanic voting districts are a thing, and redistricting in race-neutral ways draws all kinds of ire. Nobody gets to thumb the scales in similar ways for politically disfavored minorities.
I haven't said anything about denying anyone a veto--remember, that's your (inconsistent) position. I'm the one defending minority rights here. If you want to come over to my side and have a chat about who else should also get a veto, I'm definitely open to that! But you don't actually seem inclined to do that--you seem instead to simply be grasping for any possible reason to defend the idea that rural voters are just the natural and appropriate political slaves of urban America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Those things would be a form of discrimination against them, no?
No, not intentional discrimination. It certainly would not meet the standard for purposeful discrimination, as noted above: "Specifically, "[d]iscriminatory purpose in an equal protection context implies that the decisionmaker selected a particular course of action at least in part because of, and not simply in spite of, the adverse impact it would have on an identifiable group." Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 580 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 65 (5th Cir. 1992))." Allen v. Hays, (5th Circuit No. 21-20337, March 21 2023)."
Moreover, all laws affect some people differently; that doesn't make them intentional discrimination.
So "we want to ban cattle farms for ideological reasons" would not constitute discrimination against cattle farmers to you?
Either way, this is the sort of thing the geographically based houses were designed to prevent -- Reynolds was bad because it stripped States of the right to decide how their Houses should be constituted, based on an invented "right" to "one man one vote" -- which is totally baseless in terms of the design of the Union.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link