The Electoral College supposedly forces candidates to take more interest in the needs of people in rural areas.
There are cities in Wyoming and Montana and there are rural areas in New York and California, but never mind that. The Electoral College, we’re told, makes it so rural folks don’t get ignored by Presidential candidates.
What really happens, though? Is the candidates are all obsessed with a handful of “battleground states” that alternate between Dem and Rep votes and whose Electoral counts are big enough to tilt the balance. It’s not about rural folks versus city folks. It’s about Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Florida versus everyone else.
And anyway, I don’t buy into the premise that rural areas warrant a bigger share of electoral power. Lots of populations are vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority. That’s how it feels when you’re queer and your state is putting same-sex marriage up for a popular vote. We LGBTs are much, much more outnumbered by cis-hets than rural folks by city folks. It’s scary to know there are a lot more of them than you, isn’t it? Doesn’t mean the bigger states should be diminished.