General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: America's urban-rural divide deepens [View all]zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)As the population begins to concentrate in a collection of states, the states "left behind" with shrinking populations (either in absolutely or comparatively) still have two senators. That's a problem. Even more so, as populations become concentrated in states, the smaller states still get a minimum of one congressman. The result is that effectively larger states have to "give up" a congressman so the smaller one gets at least a single representative, despite their small size. All of this works in the favor of a "rural" party and to the detriment of an "urban" party, especially as the suburban areas behave more like urban ones.
A country, a government, can't function endlessly with the minority having governing control. It always ends badly.
Of the people, by the people, and for the people has to be for ALL the people. A democracy of any form (such as a representative republic like ours) rests upon the willingness of the minority to be governed by the majority. When that inverts for extended periods, you have a problem. Our system was designed to give minorities over sized influence to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It was never intended to create a minority ruling class. The founders feared oligarchies, monarchies, cabals, dictators.....