> If most people live in the cities, I don't see an argument for letting rural areas have more than their proportional share of representation. It does act to

> If most people live in the cities, I don't see an argument for letting rural areas have more than their proportional share of representation. It does act to prevent the rural areas from becoming totally neglected hinterlands, help them implement polices that may be necessary because of the different conditions of non-urban areas. That said, I do think the current bargain tips the balance too much, so I'm now in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, and giving the House an advise-and-consent role (in addition to that of the Senate), at least for judges. These smaller states can keep their extra representation in the Senate.