I'd be fine with just reducing their influence substantially. Each county gets an equal vote or something, so rural counties have just as much influence as urban ones.
I say, cities over X (and we can argue about X) population should become their own "states." The founders could not have foreseen the massive urbanization that occurred after the industrial revolution.
That would give the cities the ability to do whatever the hell they want without f**cking over the suburban/rural areas of the state, and the rural counties can have real representation in congress again.
We'd all still be paying through federal aid to support theses failing "urban" areas. Huge welfare states of minorities and illegals with corrupt governments funneling money out of working class states. NO THANKS.
Because the county with 10 feeds the city with a million, as an example. Now which is more important? The massive population, or the massive farmland with low population that allows the massive population to exist in the first place? (I’d say they’re equally important. The founding fathers would too, which is one reason why we’re a republic and not a democracy.)
There's so much I could write getting into this topic, but this modern trend of hyperurbanizstion and the death of the primary and secondary sectors of the economy is NOT a natural state of affairs, it's hegemonic warfare being waged by the Democrats. Our cities are bigger than ever yet they din't produce anything of direct value. The Democrats now use fluffed up urban numbers to steal elections and further this trend and thus their hegemony and power, to the detriment of normal Americans
The short answer is yes, it would be. Fewer people (if we're talking hypotheticals then the Democrats in this scenario would not have flooded the countrynwith immigrants) spread out more in smaller cities with way more primary and secondary sector jobs, like it used to be way back when. Until the postwar uniparty system, America was defined by its small cities. Logically, in an actual free market, it makes sense that small cities would dominate rather than hyper-metroplexes. All the advantages of services and population, without enormous capital needs for infrastructure, and more direct political control (which is a factor people take into account when choosing where to live)
If by "the US" you mean the overall physical and mental health of the vast majority of humans living in the United States, our security, individual future economic outlooks, and over well-being and quality of life for the largest possible number of humans here:
Imagine how nice things could be if those cesspools were removed.
I'd be fine with just reducing their influence substantially. Each county gets an equal vote or something, so rural counties have just as much influence as urban ones.
I say, cities over X (and we can argue about X) population should become their own "states." The founders could not have foreseen the massive urbanization that occurred after the industrial revolution.
That would give the cities the ability to do whatever the hell they want without f**cking over the suburban/rural areas of the state, and the rural counties can have real representation in congress again.
We'd all still be paying through federal aid to support theses failing "urban" areas. Huge welfare states of minorities and illegals with corrupt governments funneling money out of working class states. NO THANKS.
Exactly, an ‘electoral college’ within the States by county.
But there’s much more people in the city, why should a county with like 10 people carry the same weight as a city with a million
Because the county with 10 feeds the city with a million, as an example. Now which is more important? The massive population, or the massive farmland with low population that allows the massive population to exist in the first place? (I’d say they’re equally important. The founding fathers would too, which is one reason why we’re a republic and not a democracy.)
Yeah, very fair point. Idk though, I feel like they shouldn’t be the exact same though...
The "why" should be quite obvious at this point. To limit the damage democracy can do.
Yeah we should do that.
Or, if our farmers just boycotted those cesspools and stopped sending them food...
Then the problem would fix itself
If you pooled all the red counties in California together you’d get a batch of electoral votes rivaling and exceeding that of strong red states.
Yes
Abolish public education. Make FFA and 4H great again!
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/650/747/aaf.png
Based
There's so much I could write getting into this topic, but this modern trend of hyperurbanizstion and the death of the primary and secondary sectors of the economy is NOT a natural state of affairs, it's hegemonic warfare being waged by the Democrats. Our cities are bigger than ever yet they din't produce anything of direct value. The Democrats now use fluffed up urban numbers to steal elections and further this trend and thus their hegemony and power, to the detriment of normal Americans
The short answer is yes, it would be. Fewer people (if we're talking hypotheticals then the Democrats in this scenario would not have flooded the countrynwith immigrants) spread out more in smaller cities with way more primary and secondary sector jobs, like it used to be way back when. Until the postwar uniparty system, America was defined by its small cities. Logically, in an actual free market, it makes sense that small cities would dominate rather than hyper-metroplexes. All the advantages of services and population, without enormous capital needs for infrastructure, and more direct political control (which is a factor people take into account when choosing where to live)
yes
If by "the US" you mean the overall physical and mental health of the vast majority of humans living in the United States, our security, individual future economic outlooks, and over well-being and quality of life for the largest possible number of humans here:
Yes