There actually isn’t more rural in this country than city because the vast majority of the PEOPLE in the country live in or near a major city. Land shouldn’t equal political power. It was the main driving force of power in the Confederate south where land power of a wealthy minority led to an authoritarian slave state. When Land size equates political power then an oligarchy ensues. It always has and always will. What you said that you believe in is undemocratic at its core. Also Texas holds state seats because they Gerrymander and they gerrymander because they previously held the majority before Texas became as diverse. It’s again undemocratic to have the legacy of the previous generation and that before it represent the current population which is vastly different in so many ways. Allowing partisan gerrymandering to this extent robs the next generation of citizens in that state the proper representation. Also even if it costs Democrats a seat or two in Oregon or Delaware, we would all would vote in a heartbeat to do away with ALL partisan gerrymandering while you would not. The benefits to having a true Democratic process of proper representation far outweighs the benefit of always keeping the same electoral map just because we need to honor the legacy of how the political power was utilized back when the US had oligarchy slave states where land size equaled power.
I don't like gerrymandering and am glad that MN's districts are likely going to be court drawn this round like they were the last but gerrymandering is a fact and it's not going to go away anytime soon. Control of statehouses isn't easy for Democrats but it's far more likely than things like doing away with the EC or the Senate. Also as stated Democrats can compete in rural areas if they find the right candidates who can focus on the right issues. In the last 10 years there have been Democrat representatives, Senators and governors of the Dakotas. Also redistricting will likely lead to a lot of mixed rural, exurban and suburban districts as there just might not be enough population for completely rural districts. We saw Democrats do very well in 2018 in the suburbs and they still could again.
Also to add that while Democrats complain about the Senate because the Senate can't be redistricted Democrats might have a better shot of solidifying control of the Senate than controlling the House in 2022. We could see more states with strong urban rural splits end up like GA and AZ where the Republicans control the state legislatures but lose most statewide races.
It's outdated and a fundamental flaw of the Constitution to not prohibit politician to define who they represent.
