Rural areas vs cities

[Ardent15]

This has been something that has been bugging me for a long time. Now, I know that the Senate was designed to equally represent every state in the Union, but lately I've grown disturbed by the disproportionate amount of power less populous areas have over major population centers in regards to the Electoral College (Every state gets 2 votes from the Senators, regardless of population) and other issues, such as the fact that Wyoming gets (or used to) more counterterrorism spending per capita than California.

Another issue is the Senate. Ben Nelson and Max Baucus, for example, have a great amount of power, yet they represent far fewer people than Chuck Schumer or Barbara Boxer. And you can see how they use their power to get their way.

I guess I'm just more in favor of majorities in general, although majority rule has its own problems.

[Horse with no Name]

1. It prevents large states, like Texas, from having a bully pulpit

It is a failure in the leadership to have corporate tools LIKE Baucus in the positions of power.
The Democrats have the POWER to remove them from their little plum committee chairs--but Harry Reid is not a good majority leader so there you go.

[Ardent15]

2. California has more of a bully pulpit than Texas

And I agree, Reid is spineless.

[Horse with no Name]

3. I wouldn't be nearly as concerned with California having a bully pulpit

as I would with Texas (and I live here).
Can you imagine Hutchison and Cornyn getting to run the show??:scared:

[Ardent15]

4. Gah, you're right. nt