I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. For one, urbanites don't outnumber non-urbanites in every state--just in the particularly large metropolitan areas. In those states, the interests, needs, and attitudes of the metro areas tend to dictate the outcome of that state's elections and the metro areas are thereby represented. The "advantage" that non urban areas (in the case of the last election) get really just boils down to their attitudes, needs, and interests can't be safely ignored in national politics--it's not a winning strategy for candidates to only consider urbanites, or only farmers and hunters, or only moralizing suburban busybodies, and so on.Uiiop wrote:Givienci wrote:Evidently, the tens of millions of people living outside of urban centers were protected from urbanites. As I've already said, Attitudes, needs, and interests will invariably change with geography. Which issues specifically resonated with each non-urban voter is hard to say--they're not a monolith. Some would be highly attracted to Trumps refreshingly non-market fundamentalist approach to trade and the economy, some would attracted to the fact that he wasn't a moralizing relic, some would be attracted to voting against an urbanite view on gun rights, some would be attracted to immigration reform/immigration reduction, some would be attracted to a reduction in international entanglements that we disproportionately pay in to, some would be attracted to a reduction in foreign free-riding on the US military, etc. or any combination thereof.
The way the system works shows this to be bull. No matter the total the urbanites outweigh nons even on a state by state basis. This would give them the advantage not the other way around.