Red
Well-Known Member
I know. And that urban-rural “two Americas” is at the root of so much of our present conflicts. It’s an oversimplification to say rural=conservative, urban=liberal, simply because conservatives live in urban areas, and liberals live in the boonies. But it does seem to be generally applicable.A quarter of a millennia ago, the founders cobbled together an electoral system that prevented urban centers from running the entire nation
I live in the tiniest state in the union. Overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic leaning. Yet, I can just travel to the rural areas of RI, a half hour drive, and the residents are overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. Just like America overall, this tiny state has areas on opposite sides of our culture wars. And our rural towns and villages are conservative, our urban areas a part of the East Coast megalopolis, and liberal.
How many recent Republican presidents lost the popular vote? For the office of the presidency, I personally see nothing wrong with the winner of the popular vote being the winner of that office. I wish that were the case, rather than a situation where candidates concentrate on an handful of the same electoral-swing states, election after election. For purposes of the office of the presidency, I’m fine with a national popular-based vote. Rural states have equal say to urban states in the Senate. Two senators each. Congressional districts elect representatives that should reflect the concerns of district populations.