>I can't help but point out that you're making this claim on a thread attached to a story about a violent rural rebellion against urbanites! Exactly - Shay's r

>I can't help but point out that you're making this claim on a thread attached to a story about a violent rural rebellion against urbanites! Exactly - Shay's rebellion occurred in large part because rural voters didn't feel that they were adequately represented in their government. The Federal government didn't have enough power to oversee what was happening and the State government was made up of people from other districts, who then proceeded to disenfranchise people in the rural areas in order to more completely concentrate voting power in the urban East. >So to be clear, there's no reasonable justification for giving geographic minorities extra voting poewr that doesn't also justify giving other minorities extra voting power. The reasonable justification, beyond infrastructure spending, differences in industry and geographical considerations is that other minorities don't have a history of rebellion. In a centralized power structure, rural areas DO have a history of rebellion, successful rebellion, especially when they feel their interests are not served by the central government.