That's really not that hard of a question to answer, if you're willing to have some empathy and look at things from someone else's point of view. I say that as someone who has always lived in a large city.
Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degree of self-determination and a real say in how they are governed.
Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
> Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
Yes, like how small towns are dominating the politics of cities by being heavily favored in elections, oh those poor small towns. Tyranny of the minority indeed. Small communities aren't being trampled upon, they're the ones doing the trampling.
A fair system would be one where everyone's vote is equal, not one where people count less because they live too closely together. Rural voters currently have far far too much power given their numbers. A vote in Wyoming is worth 3.6 votes in California, and you're claiming small towns are the victims? Really?
lol. You have an hilariously parochial point of view.
>> What rights are being trampled on here?
> Clearly, it's the rights of small communities, with significant material and cultural differences from large cities, to have a degree of self-determination and a real say in how they are governed. Your choice of words shows a view that it's somehow unjust for these communities not to be dominated by distant, populous, and likely unsympathetic overlords.
That's rich and hilariously wrong. My choice of words reflected the original question.