That's...not what led to the US being founded. The cries were "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without over representation" for a reason. Subjects in the US has no representation in the British parliament, not approximately the number they should have given population, but none. If they had, about 25% of the house of commons would have been US elected representatives, none were.

Please don't rewrite history to support your political opinions.

My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations.

> Popular vote would always decide in favor of urban centers and rural citizens would be neglected yet expected to pay taxes.

The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government. You could pick the Civil Rights Movement if you think the Revolution doesn't fit the bill for some reason.

> My argument made an appeal to the emotional state behind both situations.

Yes and my point is that the comparison isn't apt.

> The point is that disenfranchisement of a large group of people would lead them to seek action against the government.

You mean like how those in urban centers are disenfranchised under the current system? "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" seems to apply.

The cries where far most than just taxation, this idea that taxation and taxation alone was the sole reason we violently rebelled agaist the Britsh empire shows a complete lack of understanding of American History.

Taxation was a reason, but even just a basic reading of the Declaration of Independence shows there are "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism"

As such it was "their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Yes, the main issue was a complete lack of political representation.

I don't think I said anything about the sole reason being taxation. What I said was that limited political representation was not the issue, a complete absence was. I'm glad we agree on that.