And yet, their actual representation is giving everyone fits. Do you want to get rid of Boebert or not? You can double down on your statement but you won’t accomplish anything besides putting me in my place. The people of this region still vote and the way our government is set up means large cities don’t get to dictate everything. If that were the case NY and LA would be ruling Denver and they could claim to be the “real people” of the U.S.
Also, where are you getting the number 1,000? That is no where close to the number of people in her district, which is also geographically fairly large (yes, because of the lack of population density). You can be just as dismissive towards everything I’m saying if you don’t like it, but for those of you who have an interest in how Boebert and those of her ilk end up in government, I’m trying to give some insight into her district. Maybe it will be helpful to someone who cares.
The people of this region still vote and the way our government is set up means large cities don’t get to dictate everything
Quite the opposite. Pockets of people from nowhere have outsized control over our federal government. This isn’t a constitutional issue either, but an agreement Congress made to stop apportionment.
How would you fix it? If you want to address issues like gerrymandering I’m in complete agreement. Or maybe you meant something else?
I can’t agree these areas count as “nowhere.” That’s where you lose people who might agree with some of your points. The local tribes have worked very hard to preserve their culture after their homelands were previously treated as “nowhere.” Can you not see that belittling people’s homes will make your goals that much harder? As much as you want to completely dismiss anyone outside your chosen sphere of existence, you are having to deal with their representative regardless of your personal opinion. Maybe someday you will get your dictatorship of the majority but that’s not how it works right now if you want to change things.
Feel free to dismiss this next part if you don’t care, but for those of you who would like to change areas like Boebert’s district I’ll make a few more points. Personally I think the politics of this region can be helped by better investment in education (my local school district is a mess), which can be helped with improved income levels so that tax money is there. I’d start with infrastructure to support that. High speed Internet would open up so many possibilities for people who can do skilled work remotely. The local Internet provider hasn’t invested in infrastructure for the past decade. Some cities have run fiber… But then the new houses aren’t actually hooked up to it??? This is an issue we are working on locally, but we are having a hard time even getting to these “luxuries” when we are battling poverty, drug use, and domestic violence. Some homes don’t even have electricity. COVID exasperated all of the existing issues here. Local crime and drug use statistics since 2020 paint a bleak picture.
I’m actually optimistic that the new free school lunch program will be a small step in the right direction. I think that’s an example of the sort of statewide program people can get behind to improve all of Colorado. Isn’t it better to lift people up than steamroll over them?
So first off, I live in a rural suburb not unlike her district, and my wife is from a town of 300 people. I used to live in Eastern Kentucky. I am not belittling rural people or rural living. However, ask people from there and they’ll say, “small town in the middle of nowhere.”
I’m sorry, but I do not believe rural people getting “steamrolled” because there are fewer of them is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. Your town has infrastructure challenges, so who do they elect? Someone who fights against improving their own area
A tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to a tyranny of the minority.
Ok, then that will have to be our fundamental disagreement. I don’t think either is a good thing. The Constitution tried to find a balance between the two. Whether it is successful or not is another good debate.
It’s fine if the people of Kentucky want to call themselves middle of nowhere. Other areas may not view themselves in that way.
Unfortunately for us the Democratic candidate also didn’t care about infrastructure. That actually frustrates me more than Boebert. The same candidate is running again. He sucks but it was close enough last time maybe he can give her the boot. I’m not convinced he’d be an actual improvement, more of a status quo placeholder.
Correct. 1,000 people from a very specific region of a state are not representative of “the people” of that state.
320k people voted.
1000 is quite the hyperbole.
And yet, their actual representation is giving everyone fits. Do you want to get rid of Boebert or not? You can double down on your statement but you won’t accomplish anything besides putting me in my place. The people of this region still vote and the way our government is set up means large cities don’t get to dictate everything. If that were the case NY and LA would be ruling Denver and they could claim to be the “real people” of the U.S.
Also, where are you getting the number 1,000? That is no where close to the number of people in her district, which is also geographically fairly large (yes, because of the lack of population density). You can be just as dismissive towards everything I’m saying if you don’t like it, but for those of you who have an interest in how Boebert and those of her ilk end up in government, I’m trying to give some insight into her district. Maybe it will be helpful to someone who cares.
Quite the opposite. Pockets of people from nowhere have outsized control over our federal government. This isn’t a constitutional issue either, but an agreement Congress made to stop apportionment.
We broke our government and we should fix it.
How would you fix it? If you want to address issues like gerrymandering I’m in complete agreement. Or maybe you meant something else?
I can’t agree these areas count as “nowhere.” That’s where you lose people who might agree with some of your points. The local tribes have worked very hard to preserve their culture after their homelands were previously treated as “nowhere.” Can you not see that belittling people’s homes will make your goals that much harder? As much as you want to completely dismiss anyone outside your chosen sphere of existence, you are having to deal with their representative regardless of your personal opinion. Maybe someday you will get your dictatorship of the majority but that’s not how it works right now if you want to change things.
Feel free to dismiss this next part if you don’t care, but for those of you who would like to change areas like Boebert’s district I’ll make a few more points. Personally I think the politics of this region can be helped by better investment in education (my local school district is a mess), which can be helped with improved income levels so that tax money is there. I’d start with infrastructure to support that. High speed Internet would open up so many possibilities for people who can do skilled work remotely. The local Internet provider hasn’t invested in infrastructure for the past decade. Some cities have run fiber… But then the new houses aren’t actually hooked up to it??? This is an issue we are working on locally, but we are having a hard time even getting to these “luxuries” when we are battling poverty, drug use, and domestic violence. Some homes don’t even have electricity. COVID exasperated all of the existing issues here. Local crime and drug use statistics since 2020 paint a bleak picture.
I’m actually optimistic that the new free school lunch program will be a small step in the right direction. I think that’s an example of the sort of statewide program people can get behind to improve all of Colorado. Isn’t it better to lift people up than steamroll over them?
So first off, I live in a rural suburb not unlike her district, and my wife is from a town of 300 people. I used to live in Eastern Kentucky. I am not belittling rural people or rural living. However, ask people from there and they’ll say, “small town in the middle of nowhere.”
I’m sorry, but I do not believe rural people getting “steamrolled” because there are fewer of them is a bad thing. Quite the opposite. Your town has infrastructure challenges, so who do they elect? Someone who fights against improving their own area
A tyranny of the majority is infinitely preferable to a tyranny of the minority.
Ok, then that will have to be our fundamental disagreement. I don’t think either is a good thing. The Constitution tried to find a balance between the two. Whether it is successful or not is another good debate.
It’s fine if the people of Kentucky want to call themselves middle of nowhere. Other areas may not view themselves in that way.
Unfortunately for us the Democratic candidate also didn’t care about infrastructure. That actually frustrates me more than Boebert. The same candidate is running again. He sucks but it was close enough last time maybe he can give her the boot. I’m not convinced he’d be an actual improvement, more of a status quo placeholder.
You should run! If Boebert can win, hell anyone can
Ha! Yes I realize I should put my money where my mouth is. But isn’t armchair politicking more fun :-)