Interesting overview of why the rural states have disproportionate representation and election clout

[JudyM]

As American as Apple Pie? The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Slice of Power

...The Democratic candidate for president has now won the popular vote in six of the last seven elections. But in part because the system empowers rural states, for the second time in that span, the candidate who garnered the most votes will not be president.

Rural America, even as it laments its economic weakness, retains vastly disproportionate electoral strength. Rural voters were able to nudge Donald J. Trump to power despite Hillary Clinton’s large margins in cities like New York. In a House of Representatives that structurally disadvantages Democrats because of their tight urban clustering, rural voters helped Republicans hold their cushion. In the Senate, the least populous states are now more overrepresented than ever before. And the growing unity of rural Americans as a voting bloc has converted the rural bias in national politics into a potent Republican advantage.

“If you’re talking about a political system that skews rural, that’s not as important if there isn’t a major cleavage between rural and urban voting behavior,” said Frances Lee, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland. “But urban and rural voting behavior is so starkly different now so that this has major political consequences for who has power....

...Still, the House retains a rural bias. Republican voters are more efficiently distributed across the country than Democrats, who are concentrated in cities. That means that even when Democrats win 50 percent of voters nationwide, they invariably hold fewer than 50 percent of House seats, regardless of partisan gerrymandering.

The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/upshot/as-american-as-apple-pie-the-rural-votes-disproportionate-slice-of-power.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

[msongs]

1. with california voters to spare we can disperse 50K of them each to dozens of states and win.

move to ND, SD in May, vote in November, then move back to CA. maybe the party can send them on a paid vacation for those 6 months or so

[JudyM]

2. (Smiling) Great workaround!

[Aristus]

5. But there's a reason why Wyoming and North Dakota have low populations:

No one wants to live there!

No one worth speaking of, anyway...

[LisaM]

3. What bothers me is that I believe in a strong rural America.

I like small towns, I shop Main Street, I like Farmers Markets, I support agricultural subsidies, and I think we need to protect family farms by limiting or abolishing inheritance taxes on them.

[JudyM]

4. That's important, but we ought to be able to support rural areas without them so disproportionately

swinging elections. Check out the whole article if you have time, including the graphics... pretty daunting.