>That's absurd. If I talk about "people who live in a major city vs people who don't", then suddenly it's the people living in major cities (proper, not metro a

>That's absurd. If I talk about "people who live in a major city vs people who don't", then suddenly it's the people living in major cities (proper, not metro area) who are a "minority". The lines here are completely arbitrary. >Or take farmers vs not-farmers. Oh no, it's imbalanced because only like 2% of people are employed in farm work! I wasn't saying that balance was good and imbalance was bad - I was saying that it had an extremely uneven population distribution, which it does. It's not an 'oh no!' situation, it's another variable. >It works reasonably well, but it would still work well, and likely better, if representation was simply one person, one vote, without any special handouts based on where you live or who you are or what you do for a living. I don't know any place that follows that rule, and theoretically I can find some ways that it wouldn't work better or at all if it was a much more direct democracy without subsidies of any kind.