[notacoward]

Have you considered that density itself is a contributing factor? That's hardly a stretch. Perhaps certain effects will be magnified in cities compared to rural areas or states containing both. And those cities might also tend more toward the Democrat end of the political spectrum. Correlation still does not equal causation. The whole "failed cities are X" trope doesn't suggest any useful policy either, unless you think emulating China's "Down to the Countryside" movement would be a great idea.

I contend that, adjusting for density, places like Mississippi or Appalachia stand as stark counterexamples to any theory that being "blue" leads to failure. In fact, a pretty strong argument could be made that "blue" policies around things like public vs. private goods, fossil vs. renewable energy, or respect for immigrants are the only reason urban failures haven't been worse or more widespread. Believe it or not, Detroit could be worse, and I believe would be worse if certain "heartland" attitudes were more prevalent there. Literal "smoking hole in the ground" worse.

To bring this back to the original topic, the inevitable trend toward greater urbanization therefore means it's even more important to address gerrymandering now instead of kicking the can down the road. Letting the rural few dictate to the urban many will surely lead to heartbreak and pain, no matter what other beliefs are involved.

[ctlby]

> doesn’t suggest any useful policy

All good points. Some blue cities do very well and some do very poorly. I have to conclude that the problems are mostly exogenous to policy.

> being “blue” leads to failure

To be clear, I was never suggesting that progressive policies lead inexorably to decline—the most successful parts of the county are blue.

> a pretty strong argument could be made

I’m more skeptical here. The policies you cite are neither necessary nor sufficient for vitality. Most pointedly, progressive values were nonexistent for most of America’s history, and yet it did quite well economically.

> literal “smoking hole in the ground” worse

But my whole point is that it was a smoking hole in the ground! I started this whole thread by responding to a claim about the inevitability of red states going “third world.” To my eye, such a thing has never happened to rural areas, but has happened to urban areas (I might add, with some frequency). Be it density or whatever—there’s something that needs to be explained.

> rural few dictate to the urban many

Agreed. I think it would be equally bad for the urban many to dictate to the rural few. Federal level policy is inappropriate for most things

[notacoward]

> it was a smoking hole in the ground

Really? When did Detroit burn to the ground? When I said literally, I meant literally. I've lived in Detroit, and still have family there. Sure it's bad but it's not literally an unlivable ruin.

> it would be equally bad for the urban many to dictate to the rural few

Equally bad? No, sorry, I don't believe majority and minority rule are equally just or effective. However few or many things should be decided at a federal level (nice red herring there), those things should be decided by votes and votes should be equal. Saying each member of one group should get more votes or more representation than each member of another is saying we should have a class system, and I reject that. There is a clear moral difference between majority and minority rule.

[ctlby]

No, not literally a smoking hole (though I believe arson was a problem for a time?) But as close to one as you’re going to get in the USA.

I can’t disagree more with your majoritarian arguments. You (and I) would probably object when, e.g. California voters ban gay marriage. But you cheer when slim majorities attempt to saddle others with heavy economic burdens or interpose themselves in others’ contractual arrangements. I find most democratic decisions illegitimate; how hard is to to just keep your nose out of other people’s business?

The founders were aware of urban/rural tension from the beginning. The system was designed to make it difficult to force obligations on fellow citizens. That means majorities are being thwarted in their efforts, and that’s a good thing.

[notacoward]

You're still conflating two things: what gets decided at a federal level, and how. How big that category is doesn't matter. It's utterly irrelevant. What matters is that, when those decision points do occur, letting the minority prevail would be worse.

> I find most democratic decisions illegitimate

Ah, the political equivalent of solipsism. Sorry, but this isn't the forum to address such fundamental fallacies. Hard pass.

[ctlby]

You seem to be positing a world where “bad” decisions are somehow kept off the ballot, leaving only a menu of “good” options for the wise majority to enact.

Well, that’s not our world. When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way. And unless I’ve seriously misapprehended your politics, I’m not sure why you’re advancing an argument where such a ban is just because “letting the minority prevail” would be worse.

So yeah, it’s a mistake to treat the “what” and the “how” of decision-making separately.

[notacoward]

> When a CA gay marriage ban comes up for vote, it’s important to me that the majority not get their way

That's why we have constitutions. Minority rule doesn't solve that, and in fact makes it more likely that the evangelical minority will shove their religion down everyone else's throats. Thanks for underlining my point.