FYI, "tyranny of the majority" means the majority gets what it wants, and damn the minorities.
> tyranny of the minority
If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic.
> tyranny of the minority
If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic.
That's an odd way to complain about not being utterly dominant.
> We have Trump because the system discriminates against urban voters, i.e. currently the majority is being damned.
That's a pretty myopic read of the situation, and not very valuable. The solution to something like Trump is not to create a permanently disenfranchised and forgotten hinterland, which really seems like your desired outcome.
Loss of privilege is not oppression, making the system more fair where all votes are equal does not make the system unfair to rural folk and does not disenfranchise them. You use words you don't seem to understand the meaning of, the only people disenfranchised right now are urban people. Treating every vote equally does not disenfranchise anyone.
But we're not talking about rights. We're talking about how voices are weighted within the democratic portion of our system. If a group is really into stepping on the rights of others, and that group includes rural voters, it's going to get further than a group that doesn't.
"Tyranny of the majority" is a problem, but weighting things so that we're making decisions based on a different arbitrary group is not the way to avert it.