I agree that there is a huge and growing gap between rural and urban/suburban voters, and I see this as an immense problem.

The electoral college gives every state at least 3 electoral votes, no matter how unpopulated that state is. Our congressional system gives every state exactly two Senators, no matter how populated or unpopulated that state is. (And of course, one of our biggest cities, Washington DC, gets no representation in Congress.) This means that a voter in the typical rural area (which will usually be in a low population state) gets considerably more power than a voter in an urban or suburban area, which will probably be in a more populated state. A farmer in North Dakota has about 50 times as much representation in the Senate as does a person live in Los Angeles -- and infinitely more representation than a resident of D.C.

The problem is that social conditions are extremely different in rural areas than in urban areas. In particular, American families have ALWAYS been much, much more stable in rural areas, where a whole family can work together on a farm, which gives men a strong economic incentive to marry. In cities, families have no work they can do together, and often have little property that they own; men have no economic incentive to get married and often no shared property that gives them an incentive to stay married. Making it worse is that single women have extreme difficulty finding work in rural areas, where many jobs involve heavy labor. So, women tend to congregate in the cities, and the surplus of women there leads many men to decide to "play the field" and delay marriage, or not marry at all.

This leads to a huge difference in social values between the cities and the country. If pregnant 17-year old Bristol Palin lived in a city, there would be almost no chance that her boyfriend would be willing to marry her -- men (and boys) are just much less interested in marriage in the cities. But, voters in rural areas have no idea of these problems; they assume that any woman who wants a husband can easily find one, since that's how it is where they live.

I believe that this is the reason why many issues surrounding marriage and reproduction have become intractable, especially abortion. Rural voters don't understand that many men in urban areas will not date a woman unless she has sex before marriage, and will not marry a woman that has an unplanned pregnancy, giving many women little choice but to have an abortion. These rural voters are a relatively small part of the population -- but they get a lot of say in electing the President and a lot of representation in the Senate. So, even though most Americans oppose making abortion illegal, the issue never goes away.

I see this is a developing crisis, and don't see how to avert it. The Constitution doesn't seem to have any provisions for bringing urban/rural power back into proportion.

With all due respest that is an over simplification of the differences between the two populations.

Rural and small town Americans generally trust their fellow man a lot more and have more respect for hard work and self responsibility. They see the violent crime in the cities and want none of it for their small communities, though its been on a serious increase there for a long time.

There is one thing urban America can do to help realtions between the two. Stop talking to rural Americans as if they are stupid, they are not.

Having lived both lifstyles this poster can say that the two are different and both have desirable qualities and shortcomings. However it is also this posters opinion that one is not vastly superior to the other, only different.

Urban/rural power is not intended to be in proportion. We are not a democracy; we are a Republic that elects it representatives through democratic means. The proper way to think of Washington is that it serves a constituency of 50, not 300+ million. Our say in the federal enterprise occurs through our states via the ballot box, not from the ballot box to Washington. Such a system was designed precisely not to let the more populous states dominate the less populous states (although this division has trended towards a urban/rural split instead of state-based differences). The system is working perfectly for it how was devised.

Many of us may disagree with this formulation of government, but that is how our system was designed. If we want an absolute majority rules/proportioanl representation system in all branches of government, it means scrapping the current system and moving towards a democratic form of government. But, that simply is not how a Republic is designed to work.

Well put. It is called the United STATES of America for a reason. The only way to get the original thirteen to unite, was that controls would be built in to keep more populated states completely dominating the others. Now mega populated states want to do just that, and smaller states are having none of it. They know that if they give in, they will be second class citizens in thier own country.

JudithS:

I agree that there is a huge and growing gap between rural and urban/suburban voters, and I see this as an immense problem.

I see this is a developing crisis, and don't see how to avert it. The Constitution doesn't seem to have any provisions for bringing urban/rural power back into proportion.

Last time the government tried to take power away from people they thought didn't need it we had a civil war.

I imagine we'd have another one if you got your way.

JudithS-- you are deluded. There are no facts in your assessment, and no proof for your premise.

There is nothing stopping urbanites from moving to a rural area or state. People make lifestyle choices to live in an urban or rural environment. Urbanites are supported by rural farms, mines, and other resource development production that takes place in rural areas. Without them urban America would not survive.

Mangement of rural resources is best handled by those who live locally or regionally. The ill advised imposition of inappropriate environmental urban values on rural areas which keep America supplied with oil and gas for instance, to interfere with normal development of these resources for the benefit of all America is bizarre.

The system gives urbanites far too much leverage over rural areas. Perhaps the USA would be better off becoming 50 separate countries than enduring undue urban influence on rural America.

Washington D.C isn't one of our "biggest cities" it's not even close. It's less than one tenth the size of NYC (that's New York City sharp stuff). Almost none of the demographic (demographics measure facts about people slick) information in the post you called "well put" is remotely accurate. Did you mean "keep from" above? You have such a fractured sense of subject it's hard to tell what misconception you are trying to foist this time. If you ever got invited to a cocktail party you'd be beat to death without ever realizing it.