On the one hand, you say we need to give geographic minorities extra power so that their interests are protected.
On the one hand, you say we shouldn't give other minorities extra power because without geographic distance jealousy/tension would overwhelm the political system.
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! I.e., geography doesn't defuse those tensions.
So given that those tensions exist no matter what, is there any justification?
> It might not be a reasonable, logical justification, but it exists.
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 only justification is grounded in realism: a fear of jealous-inspired violence toward neighbors that geographic distance would presumably prevent.
How does the very article we're commenting on not completely refute this argument?
> MA isn't that much of a special case, as it's the case in the majority of states and Federally.
It's a special case in the majority of land mass (this is just a tounge-in-cheek joke ;-) )
Federally, I disagree. Democrats won the popular vote in the Senate and Presidency but control neither. That's largely attributable to urban voters in states that allocated their electoral votes to (R).