So I live in Texas, which is more or less solid red. People talk of a blue wave, but nothing like that is going to happen in the near future on a state population level. However, several cities show blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. Not sure by how much of a margin, but they seem to lean blue. (source: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea/). The rest of the state is enough red to make up for this.
Under your proposal, we would have rural Texas with red representatives, and then an additional 3 or 4 blue states with Democrat senators for each of the cities I mentioned. I am not sure how this helps get more Republicans in office, as it would just send Democrats.
Also it seems to me that it would be hard to keep your plan in line. Cities grow over time. If a city gets large enough and starts voting Democrat, do they get kicked out of the "rural" portion and become their own state now? Is voting Democrat the litmus test?
One more point, the large population centers do pay more in property and sales taxes, as there is more commerce there, and properties are more valuable. This goes to the state, which spends it on the entire state, to some degree. This money is used in rural ares for roads, state troopers, etc. It does not all flow one way as you claim.
Also, we Houstonians, Austinites, Dallasites, San Antonians consider ourselves proud Texans. You are talking about kicking us out of our own state?
So I live in Texas, which is more or less solid red. People talk of a blue wave, but nothing like that is going to happen in the near future on a state population level. However, several cities show blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. Not sure by how much of a margin, but they seem to lean blue. (source: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea/). The rest of the state is enough red to make up for this.
Under your proposal, we would have rural Texas with red representatives, and then an additional 3 or 4 blue states with Democrat senators for each of the cities I mentioned. I am not sure how this helps get more Republicans in office, as it would just send Democrats.
Also it seems to me that it would be hard to keep your plan in line. Cities grow over time. If a city gets large enough and starts voting Democrat, do they get kicked out of the "rural" portion and become their own state now? Is voting Democrat the litmus test?
One last point, the large population centers do pay more in property and sales taxes, as there is more commerce there, and properties are more valuable. This goes to the state, which spends it on the entire state, to some degree. This money is used in rural ares for roads, state troopers, etc. It does not all flow one way as you claim.
So I live in Texas, which is more or less solid red. People talk of a blue wave, but nothing like that is going to happen in the near future on a state population level. However, several cities show blue - Houston, Austin, Dallas, San Antonio. Not sure by how much of a margin, but they seem to lean blue. (source: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea/). The rest of the state is enough red to make up for this.
Under your proposal, we would have rural Texas with red representatives, and then an additional 3 or 4 blue states with Democrat senators for each of the cities I mentioned. I am not sure how this helps get more Republicans in office, as it would just send Democrats.
Also it seems to me that it would be hard to keep your plan in line. Cities grow over time. If a city gets large enough and starts voting Democrat, do they get kicked out of the "rural" portion and become their own state now? Is voting Democrat the litmus test?