Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
Personally, I don't think it's an education thing as some like to say, as much as life conditions. The more sparsely populated an area, the more likely people tend to look to themselves first for answers and don't want outside interference, the more densely populated the more likely you are to look at an outside force (the politicals) to maintain a balance among clashes of people.
|
It's both. People in rural areas are going to be less educated because they don't have access to better education. The less educated you are, the more likely you will make bad decisions of issues. Most of these people live their lives based off of faith and religion. Sure life conditions play a part (note coal mining areas)
Representation should only matter in the people, not land mass. Who gives a shit if 6/8 of the country's land mass is "red", when the number of people in those areas don't even remotely touch the number of people in the denser populated areas. Should Wyoming (582k) have more say because it has more land mass or should New York (10million) large population. It's about the populace, and it always has been. SO showing charts with all red means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things.