Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Seat allocation" doesn't favor rural districts, it favors many districts where you win 51% of the vote over few districts where you win 80%. You'd actually need gerrymandering to reverse this effect if, like today's Democratic party, your voters are concentrated in urban areas that would otherwise be perfectly natural districts to draw.
>"Seat allocation" doesn't favor rural districts, Yes it does, at least in the sense that "rural" means "low population density" or "low ratio of population to Congressional seats". > [T]he Senate may be the least democratic legislative chamber in any developed nation. >In the last few years, 41 senators representing as little as a third of the nation’s population have frequently blocked legislation, as the filibuste…
Re: CIA agents who tortured are vulnerable to prosecution in any country
#71To not understand the Senate representational system is to not understand that the explicit purpose of the Senate was to prevent the tyranny of the majority. That was the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. The Great Compromise of 1787 was expressway to ensure smaller states had their rights protected. Without that compromise, tax dollars could be voted to improve New York City while draining the economy of less populous states. That's the genius of the American system. It is the very definition of a check and balance. The States are sovereign entities and deserve an equal voice. The House of Represenatives provides representation based on population, so that does ensure that every person is represented equally, while the Senate technically represents the states, which ensures that each state is represented equally. The foolish amendment that enabled the direct election of Senators somewhat diluted that dichotomy, but ultimately the Senate represents the states.