>I say this a lot on HN: rural interests are urban interests. No, they don't always align. There are different needs in rural areas and urban areas that compet

>I say this a lot on HN: rural interests are urban interests. No, they don't always align. There are different needs in rural areas and urban areas that compete with one another. Transportation needs, for instance, are vastly different in rural Illinois than in Chicago. Farmers might lobby for more and bigger roads and dislike public transit because it doesn't make sense in their regions. Meanwhile people in Chicago want more and better transit. These needs compete for the same infrastructure dollars. People in cities need to eat, but their interests are directly harmed by the various food price control mechanisms that the Feds put in place. Price floors, for instance, ensure that milk won't get too cheap. Who benefits? Farmers who couldn't compete at lower prices. Who loses? Every other person. Cities can pollute rivers that farmers depend on or even dam them for power needs. They can seize agricultural land for urban needs like high speed rail or airports or landfills. So no, urban and rural interests don't always align. There are quite a number of issues that can benefit one or the other but not both. I don't agree with stacking the deck so that they get more power per capita.