I would have it was obvious. The reason the House of Representatives has a Republican majority is that the Democrats’ strength is in the cities and that runs afoul of the deliberately designed structure of the Constitution. That’s the gist of Jason Willick’s post at The American Interest.
That’s not a result of chicanery and it’s not unfair. It’s the rules of the game. If you don’t like the rules, change them. Or change your appeal.
The Democratic Party wasn’t always ultra-urban. For nearly 50 years of the 20th century Democrats controlled the House under the same rules as prevail today. But Democrats had much greater rural, small town, and suburban strength then than they do now.
But under the present rules and with the present Democratic Party strategy Republicans will maintain strength in the House if not outright control. Which is one of the reasons the Republicans won’t go the way of the Whigs whatever the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
Changing the rules requires leaders to actually lead instead of issuing the latest approved pablum. Much more rewarding for them to nod sagely while making noises that ensure the campaign/family coffers are full.
The rules were made when 90% of the population lived on farms and 10% lived in cities. Now we have 80% in urban areas and 20% rural. So why does the 20% dominate the 80%? I don’t think that was necessarily built into the original rules. Decisions have been made as we have expanded about how many congressmen will be allotted, though it is clearly the case for Senators.
Steve