> We are not in a Democracy. We live in a Republic.
We live in both these things.
Well actually I live in Germany at the moment, but I'll be coming back someday!
> Geography doesn't have anything to do with personal characteristics.
Don't be ridiculous, where you choose to live doesn't count as a personal characteristic? You can find endless examples of people who disagree, just ask.
> If you own land, you are tied to it. It's not easy to move, and we don't usually want people to move because if you stay in a place, you tend to improve it.
There are both upsides and downsides to people being tied down. You're right, people who own in a place are more invested in it. On the other hand, we want a certain amount of labor fluidity as different metros and industries rise and fall. There are people who insist on staying in their hometown even though the jobs have all left and aren't coming back anytime soon, and often that's not great for them or the government.
> I'm not sure why you brought up that most people arguing about something tend to pick the side that benefits them. I live in New York City. This does not benefit me.
I'm talking about what I've usually seen. I'm not saying it applies 100% of the time.
> When I referred to rural vs urban population distribution, balanced meant an even distribution. What else would it have meant?
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!
> The point is that we have a system that works pretty well
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.