>>33205>So you are just trying to use rural peoples as a pawn in your partisan politics regardless of their well being?Are you saying you know what's good for the people in rural areas better than they do?
>>33205>In that regard we are vastly underrepresented.It's intentional, you know. Every state gets two guaranteed seats outside population for a reason, to keep the big states from ganging up on the little states. The article you linked claims Wyoming gets 3x the representation of a state like California, but that's because it gets two extra seats just for being a state, as the founding fathers intended.
People have had this conversation hundreds of years ago about whether we should do elections just by population or giving a set number of votes to each state. Fans of the former thought their big states would get underrepresented, fans of the latter thought the big states would loom over them. The way the electoral college works is a compromise for both of these viewpoints. It's still majorly determined by population, but with every state, no matter how small, getting two extra seats so they can make a difference instead of getting drowned out by the big states. I don't have it on me, but if you look at the electoral map for the 2016 election by county, the entire thing is red except for a few small areas and a few cities with giant populations. If we used direct democracy to determine elections, that small amount of land would have drowned out the rest of the nation. The way things are, California still gets about 1/10th of the entire vote despite being just one state.
I'm starting to wonder if you're against the state of Jefferson because it means you wouldn't get to nullify their votes with the huge crowd of liberals in the south part of the state.
