Interesting, but I’d say your case study is a much clearer explanation of the downsides to unfettered capitalism (especially in regards to infrastructure) and m

Interesting, but I’d say your case study is a much clearer explanation of the downsides to unfettered capitalism (especially in regards to infrastructure) and money in politics than it is of political power apportioned by population. Traditionally, the government spends more per capita on infrastructure in less populated territories. This holds true for most developed countries. Within states this also holds true. More state budget is spent per capita to build up rural roads than city ones. They ensure water, sewage, electricity, television, and internet to provide service to remote populations instead of allowing them to only operate in cities (and they charge the same price despite a higher cost to serve rural populations). Again, this tends to be the case despite whether a developed country has a body like the US Senate or not. When it comes to government decisions, rural territories whether at the state level or the national level receive disproportionately more benefit from their association with more urban counties or states. It’s ok to get nervous about change. That’s what conservative beliefs are: change is bad. But if I could offer any advice about a better way to think about this specific issue: dozens of countries don’t have a body like the US Senate and don’t decide their elections based on an electoral college. They’re doing fine and in many ways better than the US. The suggestions to abolish these institutions aren’t some untried theoretical far-fetched idea. They’ve been used for hundreds of years in some places. Not so scary, huh?