NYT: California's Far North Deplores 'Tyranny' of the Urban Majority

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I was talking to peeps about this in IRC last night. While I can feel their pain as a partisan minority, some of the things presented in this article as ridiculous:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since when are legislatures required to do this? Personally I think CA could use a slightly bigger legislature, but I hardly think it is something you can sue over. As TimTurner pointed out, this won't really solve their issues either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one cuts the cake. Practically the entire US political system from the top down is structured to benefit rural voters over urban voters, and they want more? Good grief.

It's drawn to benefit people in low population states, not rural voters in large states. Upstate NY has been bleeding jobs and population like crazy, but no one cares because it's not a separate state.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh boo hoo, the poor northern white folk feel ignored and people have to feel sorry for them.  I'll start caring when they start publishing stuff about the African Americans in Rural Alabama and Mississippi who are ignored, or the Hispanics in Southern Texas.

So you don't care if people who endure the horrors of poverty as long as they're white? Are you a f-cking sociopath?

Or I rather not have article after article on these "noble folks" while huge minority populations are ignored and pushed under a rug by both the right and white liberals.

Isn't your wing of the Democratic Party primarily interested in chasing the concerns of upper middle class white suburban fiscal conservatives?

My wing of the party is fighting for the rights of LGBT people's.  And if you mean Clinton people, as many others have said, they have no party wing, but are a coalition of many different wings, like the above mentioned.

Your brave leader waited until 58% of Americans supported SSM to support it.