This logic confounds me.  Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)?<p>I&#x27;ve lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it&#x27;s clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural &#x2F; urban &quot;balance&quot;.<p>Depending on what you consider urban, the US is roughly split 80% urban, 20% rural.<p>To me, it seems unlikely that a ground effort in rural America would be completely neglected in a proportional system.  If a party did neglect the ~20% of rural voters, it would seem to put itself at a disadvantage to other parties, especially given the lower relative cost of rural media markets.<p>We see the same problem with the Senate, where populous states such as Texas and California stand at a remarkable disadvantage to Montana and Wyoming in terms of representation.  The voice of a constituent in Wyoming is 66 times that of one in California.<p>How can we call this system representative?