They have fewer voters.
Fewer people identify with them.
Fewer people support their policies.
If Democrats can continue to get voters out, like in GA, they will lose seats.
They have fewer voters.
Fewer people identify with them.
Fewer people support their policies.
If Democrats can continue to get voters out, like in GA, they will lose seats.
It might be interesting to re-evaluate whether representation by geography still makes sense. I'm more partial to the parliamentary approach, where parties get representation proportional to votes cast for them, so this way there could be a "rural interests party" which rural voters could vote for and receive representation proportional to their population. This might also do an end-run around the mind-bogglingly corrupt practice of gerrymandering?
Apparently this was a big 'issue' in the 80's, when the US government usage was "Utahan" or "Utahian," while the local usage was "Utahn." Webster's currently lists "Utahan" as the correct usage, as far as I can tell (their website is trash - searching for "Utahan" and "Utahn" just redirects to the "Utah" entry.
[0] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf...