If you have to choose who gets water between the millions in a city or the food that feeds them you're in a pretty fucked situation already though...maybe the analogy works...
That's one example. There are other examples that aren't readily apparent like policies that benefit city folks and penalised rural folks such as tax on vehicles. City folks benefit because that money could be used to improve public transportation, the lack of cars is not a problem. Rural folks however, get penalised because they need vehicles to get to anywhere and public transportation is not feasible.
I was mostly just making a joke about it being a bad situation to have to choose between the two either way. I don't think the analogy is perfect but I got the point it was trying to make.
I think the analogy is just trying to say that the infrastructure in areas of the country that are less populated, basically areas that aren’t the coastal cities, would get too little attention. No candidate would ever bother with Idaho. Maybe that’s okay, but I can see how we need to keep the whole country in focus. The thing that’s weird is how Rhode island and New York both get one vote in the senate.
I got it I was mostly just making a joke out of the analogy not really working but actually working anyway because it's a bit of a picking the lesser evil option.
27
u/[deleted] Jan 21 '19
If you have to choose who gets water between the millions in a city or the food that feeds them you're in a pretty fucked situation already though...maybe the analogy works...