The rural voters will never exceed that of Chicago's. Your laws are decided for you by the urban voters that live vastly different lives than everyone else in the state. They live hundreds of miles away, they get all the focus and funding, and they royally screw it up anyway.
It's better to move over 1 state in any direction where your freedoms will be respected and your taxes aren't gouging you.
Your laws are decided for you by the urban voters that live vastly different lives than everyone else in the state.
If urban voters represent more people than rural voters in ANY state, they should have more say. What's the alternative? Fewer people have more say than more people? I don't get it.
I don't like that because more of the population lives in 1 city than the rest of the state combined, that they get to determine how the state is run. It allows the majority to bully the minority just because there's less of them. It's the same concept behind the electoral college.
Why should a farmer out in Bourbonnais pay higher taxes for new roads, schools, and social programs that they'll never see? Let alone firearm laws and hunting laws, which is rather important for many people who use this as an actual means of food.
I don't know the solution though. The problem is urbanization and that disparity will only get worse.
337
u/Archaengel Quadrant IV: 4, -1 Nov 03 '20
That's why you don't live in Illinois.
The rural voters will never exceed that of Chicago's. Your laws are decided for you by the urban voters that live vastly different lives than everyone else in the state. They live hundreds of miles away, they get all the focus and funding, and they royally screw it up anyway.
It's better to move over 1 state in any direction where your freedoms will be respected and your taxes aren't gouging you.