100% serious -- should dems focus on urbanizing swing states in order to lessen their institutional disadvantage?

People who live in cities tend to be a lot more open-minded as a consequence of meeting and becoming familiar with a wider variety of people. As we all know, each US state counts for 2 votes in the Senate regardless of population, and all states get 1 vote in the House for free before population is accounted for. This massively favors low-population states, which tend to be very rural.

Anyway, the growth of cities is something we can affect politically. We can rail for softer zoning codes, more public transit access, fewer anti-urbanism regulations (i.e. road width minima), more land value taxes, and more low-income housing. Maybe we could small-ish cities like Spring Hill, Florida and Charlotte, Michigan, which have yet to really pop as left-wing strongholds.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

No, no, no. You must be stopped from this. No more urbanization. No more scars on the land.

View 7 more replies »

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@BlueVeins I'm not advocating walking on highways... although many these days are built with bike lanes and sidewalks, so you do need to factor that in.

And, let's not forget there is a growing (not shrinking) trend of people working remotely (from home) which can reduce or eliminate daily commuting. I insist (INSIST) you factor that into your thought process. Tactile experiences should not be dismissed so lightly either. It can be and is relaxing and serve as a mind de-stressor. Doesn't that count for anything in your quest to see people live on top of one another?

City living is not all it is cracked up to be. I get that there can be some advantages, but you are pushing only the benefits. What about those downsides? When do we get to seriously consider those? And, the thing is... I don't want to live in some small compartment on the 50th floor of some building with cookie-cutter compartments just so when I finally reach street level I can catch a ride to wherever it is I am going with no connection at all to real-world nature.

BlueVeins · 22-25

@MarkPaul

And, let's not forget there is a growing (not shrinking) trend of people working remotely (from home) which can reduce or eliminate daily commuting.

Soooo never leave your house except to go shopping and exercise? I tried that life when COVID hit, it's abysmal.

I don't want to live in some small compartment on the 50th floor of some building with cookie-cutter compartments just so when I finally reach street level I can catch a ride to wherever it is I am going with no connection at all to real-world nature.

You don't need skyscrapers if you don't have suburbs. No suburbs -> more land available to build on -> property values don't get high enough to justify skyscrapers.

MarkPaul · 26-30, M

@BlueVeins Look, admittedly we are talking about relying on transportation to get to and from most specific destinations (work, groceries, parks, etc.). For those who are troubled by that kind of reliance, they should move to a more urban location. But, what about those of us who don't want that lifestyle? Why can't we continue to have a choice?

Okay, so not a skyscraper, but a multi-unit dwelling is still onerous. Personally, I need some amount of space. I don't want to be a hermit, but unless it's a roommate (or more) I don't necessarily want people on the other side of every wall that surrounds me.