For national issues. A bridge is not a national issue, whatever your laws try to paint it as. It's very much local.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Printable View
For national issues. A bridge is not a national issue, whatever your laws try to paint it as. It's very much local.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Well some bridges are of national importance, some even international (Like the bridge that will maybe be built from Germany to Denmark)
Well, those are the exceptions. Then again, such stuff actually falls under the purview of our federal government since it's part of the Autobahn.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I gave that as 1 example. I also gave other more general examples such as the rather naive belief given by Labour's Diane Abbott MP that petrol should be more heavily taxed as the public should be using Public Transport. Because the whole country has the London Underground :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Or do you consider taxation to not be an issue either?
I still don't see why that singular example should make my vote worth less just because I happen to live in a city. I'm also not quite sure how this Abbott person personally holds a dictatorial sway over taxes?
Let's turn this thing around, okay? Why on earth should the country folks be allowed to vote on stuff that's happening in London, using your special logic?
Firstly there's a difference between London and other cities and towns and countryside. Where I am is a town it's not countryside but it's not London either.
Laws affect the entire nation so should be voted upon by representatives of the nation. Not just one area. As I said above 48% of Labour Party members live in London but the same can not be said of the population as a whole.
Your vote should hold equal say. Under our system it does. You have a vote in who your individual representative is. That MP must be the MOST popular candidate for your area. You can hold that single person to account.
That's not "equal say" if population density is irrelevant. It would be equal say if population density was uniform.
Why is that so hard to grasp? If your vote holds more power depending on where you live inside a country then there's something very wrong with your system. Unless, of course, said representative gets an equally large representation.
I mean, if one guy represents 1 million people and the other guy represents only a hundredthousand - and both get the same voting power in parliament - how exactly is that "equal say"? It's "equal" for the representatives, okay, but not for the ordinary citizen.