[MarcScott]

But don't you end up with tyranny of the minority? Small states, that fit a very niche demographic, end up being pivotal in decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans, often due to the intense lobbying that is targeted at these senators.

[EarlKing]

What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes... that the rural proletariat is represented in government rather than yielding all decisions to the urban bourgeoisie. The American form of government was designed specifically to ensure a balance of interests rather than allowing one class to run roughshod over the other. It's a design feature, and a good one at that, no matter how much it distresses imperialists who'd prefer to simply dictate the course of affairs to the working class.

[hvusslax]

"What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes..."

Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes. Every state has both rural and urban segments. Is the "rural proletariat" of California better represented than the "urban bourgeoise" of Rhode Island in this system? It's an 18th century compromise where the justifications where invented after the fact. This seems to be true for a lot of things about the founding of the United States. Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

[EarlKing]

> Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes.

No, but urbanization does, and some states are more suitable to dense settlement than others.

> Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

Likewise the jabs aimed at the founding fathers by people who have an obvious axe to grind (namely an imperialist one). You'll forgive me if I prefer not to reject constitutionalism because it conflicts with someone's preferred method of exploitation.

[notfromhere]

It’s not. Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do. Rural doesn’t mean agriculture because that is a tiny fraction of the workforce. Poor rural voters work the same jobs that poor urban voters do (largely service or manufacturing).

The urban “bourgeoisie” isn’t big enough to dictate anything as a voting bloc, but the “equal representation of classes” angle is a great way to justify suppressing urban political representation.

[EarlKing]

> Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do.

Really? I don't know many people working in the tech industry or high finance that live in suburbia or out in the country... DO YOU?

This is just an excuse to disenfranchise people who refuse to vote your way, and it's disgusting.

[notfromhere]

Lol, tech and finance is not the majority of workers anywhere, even in San Francisco or New York.

In rural and urban areas, the split between service and manufacturing is pretty similar. Obviously, agriculture makes a bigger contribution but not by much.

What are you talking about suburbia? The suburbs of every major city are full of white collar workers in high finance, or tech. Even in New York, people commute from Westchester or Greenwich to their finance jobs in Manhattan. Most of the tech industry in Silicon Valley is literally in the suburbs. What a weird thing to say.

[vorpalhex]

Which is why states have the ability to pass most legislation at the state level, such as minimum wage or labor laws.