> If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic. But we're not talking about rights. W

> If that's how you want to characterize having rights that are protected, go ahead, but it's embarrassingly simplistic. 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.