I completely disagree with Wheat's points 1, 2, 4, and 5. Got any data to back up some of that?
I commend you for trying to see both sides, but I'm thinking you're still seeing mostly one. Who knows, maybe I am too
1) I have a big concern with people who contribute nothing to society being able to change policy to enable this lifestyle. I think there is a good argument for property ownership (or rent or something) as a requisite to the right to vote, or paying taxes, because though still not ideal, at least you'd then have skin in the game. I don't think your very existence should guarantee a right. The extreme case is millions of illegal immigrants (note: I'd love to open the borders completely to legal immigrants) moving in, voting to make everyone else support them. You cool with that?
2) I don't even know what you're trying to say here, if anything it's the opposite. In most states, a few densely populated counties run the entire state. Imagine some urbanites who don't even know where milk comes from telling farmers hundreds of miles away what they can and can't do on their land. Combine that with it usually being MORE difficult for rural voters to make it to the polls than urban voters, and you get a natural skew towards urban votes being "worth more".
Note: I say this as someone who has lived in: rural California, rural and urban Oklahoma, and urban Washington, so I think I've seen a fair bit of both types of conservative, liberal, rural, and urban.
4) Data I've seen shows the opposite: WAY more polling areas and much more dense in urban areas. It got even better this year with Uber and Lyft offering discounted ride to polls. Public transportation in urban areas often have additional routes to take people to polls on that day. Guess who would most benefit from all this? People without vehicles. Guess who these types are going to disproportionately vote for? Again, got any proof? Saying the system is somehow against them is just silly, if anything it's the opposite.
5) I would say in most states it is required by law that an employer give enough time off to make it to the polls. Many states had early polls. All states have absentee ballots (which I've used nearly every election myself). No, it's not clever way to somehow hurt the Democratic party.
And no, the uproar is the same regardless of who wins. Texas threatening to secede when Obama wins, is told to quit whining by California. California threatening to secede when Trump wins is told to quit whining by Texas. We just have short, selective memories is all, and confirmation bias doesn't help. There was a huge uproar when Obama won (both times) but you probably weren't paying attention because you didn't care about their thoughts at the time.
I do agree with you on TV though. I can't watch TV without feeling sick and usually try to avoid news altogether, even on the Internet. Fox is ridiculously biased in one direction and most of the other networks in the other. It's not news, it's narrative. Read any news comment section and you'll find idiots on either side calling everybody else racist, or idiots, or deniers, or whatever. It'd be nice to have a little more mutual respect. None of us agree completely with any policy or candidate and might have vastly different reasons for supporting it.
