> Don't forget our ridiculous Congressional system that greatly over-weights the opinions of rural voters.

No, it overweights the opinions of voters in low-population states.

Sure, California voters are underrepresented compared to Wyoming voters, but California has about ten times as many people living in rural areas as Wyoming has people in total; Rhode Island is nearly as overrepresented as Wyoming, but nearly as urban as California.

Giving more political power to rural areas is not necessarily a bad thing. One can argue that it is beneficial in that it compensates for the sparseness of those areas and lets them participate in the game on the national stage.

I think the problem with rural areas is not their overly great political influence but rather the fact that they have been abandoned by mainstream politicians.

I don't understand why you need to compensate for the sparseness of those areas. They're people just like I am. Land doesn't and shouldn't get its own say in the system.

Lets them participate in the game? They could still participate if they had an equal voice. Their weight on the national stage wouldn't be huge, since they're only 15% of the population, but getting 15% of the voice for 15% of the population seems fair to me. The rural population is similar in size to the black population. Should we give black people a disproportionate vote so they can better participate on the national stage?

> 1/53rd the number of representatives in the House.

I assume you meant 53 representatives?