"Ending The Blue State Urban Veto"

 This is another one I shamelessly clipped while I was on the cruise, I got it from Michael Smith SubStack.  He makes a lot of good points that the urban areas can pull a state. Oregon has that problem as does Washington.  Both have very blue cities surrounding by red rural areas, but they swing the states partially by the lax voting rules they have by the political machines that run the state(Democrat).   I have commented many times that voting is a safety valve for our society, but it it is made redundant by the gerrymandering and other slight of hands tricks  used by the party in charge to totally wipe out any influence of the opposition party, people will eventually lose the will to participate, and the institutions of the country take a hit.  When people no longer care to participate in the body politic and fade away, the safety valve is gone, eventually a spark will set off a fight. and it will go kinetic. Do I want to see "Spicy Times", no I don't, but eventually I see it coming when the tyranny of the minority will force the issue.

Virginia’s election of alleged “moderate” Democrat, Abigail Spanberger, proves a couple of things. First, given her immediate actions—what Meghan McCain described as an effort to “turn Virginia into Minneapolis”—it confirms there are no such things as “moderate” Democrats anymore. CIAbigail has already moved to unwind many of the reforms of former governor Youngkin, including ending hand-counting ballot safeguards and reinstating discriminatory DEI policies. Second, her victory once again illustrates how concentrated urban populations rule over rural counties in statewide elections, regardless of how divergent their values, needs, or ways of life may be.

In dense urban and suburban environments, daily life is mediated by public systems so thoroughly that their presence becomes invisible. Garbage disappears on schedule, utilities are reliable, grocery stores are minutes away, and commercial centers appear as if by market magic—though many are in fact the result of tax abatements, subsidies, zoning favoritism, and government-directed incentives. When most necessities are delivered through a mix of public provision and state-assisted development, and the most effort required is dragging a wheelie bin to the curb, it is hardly surprising that residents come to see larger government as natural, benevolent, and even indispensable. By contrast, someone living a hundred miles from a major airport or a full-service hospital experiences government very differently and understandably struggles to see why taxes must rise to support services that feel distant, unnecessary, or irrelevant to daily survival.

This divide maps cleanly onto modern electoral geography. As population density increases, so does support for liberal, government-centered policies, a pattern visible in virtually every election heat map. The closer one lives to a dense urban core, the more likely one is to support expansive government programs; the farther away, the more skepticism tends to grow. When people spend their entire lives in environments where government quietly handles problems they never have to think about, independence and private enterprise begin to appear risky, even threatening. They assume that without government, those services might disappear and that they would, for the first time, must pay for them directly, manage them personally, or go without.

The rural counties and the urban areas, meanwhile, have profoundly different philosophies, ideologies, and views of religion—and yet they are regulated, taxed, and governed as if they were interchangeable with the urban cores that dominate statewide elections. This tension is no longer abstract or theoretical. We see it in counties openly discussing secession, state realignment, or outright political separation as a means of escaping governance they no longer recognize as legitimate.

I’ve written before about how Congress actively assisted West Virginia’s break from Virginia over slavery in 1861 and awarded it statehood in 1863. Setting aside how legally questionable and non-reproducible that episode would be today, the fact that people are even contemplating similar ideas tells you something is broken. The current arrangement does not feel particularly fair and it certainly does not feel representative.

The U.S. Constitution reflects a uniquely American insight: democracy without geography becomes domination. The Founders never believed that raw headcounts alone produced legitimacy. They believed legitimacy came from distributed consent across real, distinct communities. That is why they created the Electoral College to elect presidents, split Congress into two chambers, apportioned House seats by population, and granted each state equal representation in the Senate. These were not accidents or compromises born of ignorance; they were deliberate structural restraints on the tyranny of concentrated majorities. Modern states abandoned that insight—not because it was wrong, but because it was inconvenient.

I’ve been thinking about this problem for nearly twenty years. Every presidential cycle, when a handful of urban counties like Fulton County in Georgia or the swamp-infested counties of Northern Virginia, effectively determine who sits behind the Resolute Desk, I revisit it, then drop it again. Since the disastrous election of 2020, however, I’ve been more deliberate, jotting down possible alternatives to the permanent domination of rural counties by cities—domination that exists solely because cities have more headcount. I keep arriving at the same conclusion: the problem is not democracy itself, but the absence of federalism inside the states.

Out of roughly ten mechanisms I examined, three stand out as serious possibilities, all would require amendments to state constitutions. I proposed several frameworks to ChatGPT and Grok, told them to use Virginia as a crash-test dummy, and then compared, synthesized the outputs and ranked by legal survivability.

The most legally durable option would be a dual-majority requirement for statewide offices. Under such a system, a candidate would need to win both the statewide popular vote and a majority of counties or regions. This does not dilute urban votes or give rural areas veto power. It simply requires geographic legitimacy in addition to numerical superiority. Cities could still decide elections—but only if their preferences were shared, at least in part, beyond their own boundaries. Courts have historically been more comfortable with outcome-qualification rules than with systems that directly weight votes, making this approach especially resilient.

A closely related option would replace counties with regions. Virginia is already functionally divided into recognizable geographic blocs—Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, Central Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwest Virginia. Requiring a candidate to win the statewide vote and carry a minimum number of regions would prevent a single metro area from imposing its will on the rest of the Commonwealth, while avoiding the legal vulnerability of treating tiny rural counties as coequal to Fairfax or Loudoun. It forces candidates to assemble geographically broad coalitions rather than relying on one dense population center.

The most philosophically honest, though legally ambitious, solution would be a state-level electoral college. Counties or regions would function as political units, each receiving a combination of population-based electors and a small fixed allotment recognizing territorial status. Statewide offices would be decided by electoral votes rather than raw totals. This mirrors the logic of the federal system and acknowledges that states are composed of communities, not just aggregates of individuals. Properly designed, with population remaining the dominant factor, such a system could survive judicial scrutiny, though it would require careful drafting and political courage.

While I personally prefer the last option, none of these reforms would guarantee conservative victories, nor are they meant to. Their purpose is not partisan advantage but political relevance—rural Virginians would not be asking to rule cities; they are asking not to be ruled by them. Federalism was never about efficiency. It was about legitimacy. When fundamentally different ways of life are governed as if they are interchangeable, resentment becomes inevitable and consent erodes.

We see the same dynamic play out at the county level elsewhere. I lived in Park City, Utah, in Summit County, which is still (despite the sprawl) majority farm and ranch land. Yet the county is effectively ruled by Park City rather than the county seat of Coalville. Scale changes, but the problem remains the same.

Virginia is beginning to experience that reality firsthand. The real question is not whether these mechanisms are sufficiently democratic. It is whether a system that permanently subordinates one culture, one economy, and one way of life to another can plausibly claim to be representative at all.

If geography no longer matters, then consent soon won’t either.