This is the problem that vexes me the most (though I'm utterly uneducated on political science). Yes, people generally don't vote with the things that affect ot

This is the problem that vexes me the most (though I'm utterly uneducated on political science). Yes, people generally don't vote with the things that affect others on their mind. So, we can attempt to divide people into groups of "affected by X" and artificially increase the worth of their votes, e.g. "affected by rural issues" vs "affected by urban issues", but that's just so incredibly hazy (there is complex bleed-over between all categories due to indirect or time-delayed effects). And there are too many categories to realistically consider. Do we artificially amplify the votes of black people because there are issues that disproportionately affect them and they are a minority population? And then you run into problems where there is an issue that affects everybody, but one of these amplified groups has a strongly different opinion on it compared to the general population for some tangential reason, where there's no good argument to amplify any one voice on the topic (lots of examples in right vs left social politics, reflected in the rural vs urban groupings, that aren't intrinsically rural vs urban issues). Edit: I think the second problem I'm describing is what people are calling "the tyranny of the minority."