News

Rural states have a large advantage in the house, huge advantage in the senate, and of course significant skew in the electoral college. And much of it comes from compromises with slave owners.
Abolishing the EC would not mean rural regions get completely ignored, not only would they have reps and senators still courting their votes (and campaign donations), civilized countries with functional democracies have multiple parties. A rural party would show up, which could court voters in all rural areas, instead of only in swing states.

Don't conservatives resent democrats either way? They have so much of an advantage through the EC that the democrats have to go liberal+progressive big tent, but still they complain/fear the amount of non-whites and atheists in big cities.

Also don't black americans + lgbt also resent their underrepresentation? Why should rural white populations get to speak over them? Just because historically that's been the case and we don't want to hurt their feelings?

Say it ain't so... the Republican party would need to become more attractive to moderate conservatives and be less alienating? What a travesty that would be.

Conservativism, as it exists in modern America, is simply a fringe belief that only survives because of our broken ass election system that forces us into two parties.

One, the Republican party needs to pivot, or die, frankly. They've gone so far down the fascist rabbit hole at this point that they're a danger to the very fabric of this country. Perhaps if they couldn't get away with chiefly appealing to a minority of this country, that would push them to do so.

Two, the idea of the current system serving the rural/urban divide is a complete lie. Do you think the people of Kern County, CA are served by the electoral college? Do you think the people of San Antonio, TX are? No, they are completely and utterly ignored because they happen to be in states that vote the other way. To say nothing of the fact that the people who generally do vote with their state are ignored almost as much, because they can be taken for granted.

If you want every American to count, then you need to count every American. And if that upsets some people who have gotten used to welding outsized power over the rest of us and now think that's their birthright, oh fucking well.

So your plan is to hand power to the minority of people? And you think we should agree to this minoritarianism, because the rural / conservative view holders would get resentful?

Why don't we just hand the country back to the indigenous people and let them, an even bigger minority than the rurals, run shit for a while?

Anyway "rural / conservative view"s are already represented in their communities, towns, cities, and states. By their local, city, and state governments.

And by your "logic" shouldn't all those conservative counties that vote red be forced to give greater weight to their liberal residents, yah know so their liberal voices aren't drowned out and they suddenly become resentful or something.

I used to agree, and perhaps that concept made more sense in the 18th century when the urban/rural divide was not nearly as stark and separate.

The same goes with the Senate. I have no problem with it in concept, but unless we can also have a House that is actually proportionally representative, then it doesn't really make sense.

Resentment grows either way.