>gives the veto to rural, conservative areas instead
How? Last I checked Democrats still won several elections without receiving the majority of rural votes. Instead, they can't simply rely on only winning the urban centers. Where as on the state level places like New York and California are run exclusively based on the whims of the major urban centers. Would you prefer to enable politicians to avoid the rural areas and the very different concerns in service of the urban areas which happen up have more people? As it stands the politicians must campaign in both areas if they want a chance.
If the the popular vote mattered you'd have a point. The system in place attempts to balance the concerns of different areas instead of giving a veto to large cities.
How? Last I checked Democrats still won several elections without receiving the majority of rural votes. Instead, they can't simply rely on only winning the urban centers. Where as on the state level places like New York and California are run exclusively based on the whims of the major urban centers. Would you prefer to enable politicians to avoid the rural areas and the very different concerns in service of the urban areas which happen up have more people? As it stands the politicians must campaign in both areas if they want a chance.