Politically Speaking, Rural Rules

Recall the distinction between the introductory words of our two founding documents—our two constitutions, if you will. The Articles of Confederation refer to “we, the undersigned Delegates of the States,” whereas the Constitution famously begins with “We the People.”

Under the Articles, the states composed the nation, and thus the state governments created the national government. Under the Constitution, the people composed the nation, and thus the people (though counted on a state-by-state basis) rather than the state governments created the national government.

The Senate was a compromise: instead of only states being represented in Congress as under the Articles, both states and people are represented in Congress under the Constitution.

In the latter framework, as we know, the House of Representatives represents the entire country based upon population divided into districts. The House originally had members from 65 districts but grew after each census until it was capped at the current 435 members in 1929.

The Senate, by contrast, represents the entire country divided into 50 states with two senators each regardless of population. Thus, we can say that the House represents people and the Senate represents states.

The fear in 1787 may have been that the large states by population would dominate the small states by population, but what we have now appears to be the reverse. We see this at both the presidential level in the electoral vote, and the Senate.

Why? By providing representation for states as states in the Senate regardless of their various populations, the Constitution institutionalizes a significant political and electoral advantage for whichever party has strength in rural areas. After the Civil war, in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, that was the Democrats; the Republicans were the party of urban and industrial America.

Since the 1960s, that has reversed: the Democrats are now the party of urban and industrial America and the Republicans have become the party of rural and agricultural America. That’s why today Democratic states tend to be in the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and the west coast, while Republican states tend to be in the South and the interior west.

Regardless of population differences, whichever party is strong in rural areas has a distinct advantage in both the electoral college and the Senate.

According to the Census Bureau: “In general, rural areas are sparsely populated, have low housing density, and are far from urban centers. Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population. Conversely, 97 percent of the country’s land mass is rural but only 19.3 percent of the population lives there.” (If you want to drill down into what counts as rural, go here.)

That’s just amazing—only about 20% of our population lives on 97% of our land mass! There are political consequences.

Bear with me now. Numbers are our friend.

As of 2025, the 10 least populated states— Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, and New Hampshire — had a total population of 9,875,325. That is 2.8% of the country’s population, yet with 20 Senate seats they have 20% of the Senate.

For example, as of 2024, per Census data, Wyoming has 0.17% of total U.S. population, yet it has 2% of the Senate—11.76 times what it would have proportionally. California has 11.6% of total U.S. population, yet it has 2 Senate seats instead of, proportionally, the 11.6 Senate seats it would have. In other words, California has 67 times the population of Wyoming, yet it has the same number of Senators.

Consider the nine rural, highly Republican states of Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. These states have 18 Senators—18% of the Senate—but with 18,022,784 residents they have 5.3% of our total national population.

On the other hand, the ten largest states by population—California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan—contain 53.5% of the country’s total population, yet are represented by 20 Senators.

A current example of this domination is visible in President Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It passed House by a vote of 218-214, where 218 is a majority of the full chamber. It passed the Senate on July 3 with a vote of 51-50. The Senate Republicans currently number 53, but the defections of Senators Paul (KY), Collins (ME), and Tillis (NC) created a 50-50 tie that enabled Vice President Vance to cast the deciding vote.

Counting up the population of each state whose two senators voted for the bill, along with counting half the population of each state whose senators voted in opposition to each other (Kentucky, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), we get the result that the winning 50 senators voting for the bill represent 40.4% of the U.S. population, whereas the losing 50 senators voting against it represent 59.6% of the total population.

Our constitutional framework was set up to ensure that majorities rule, but not over everything. As it’s developed, however, we have a framework in which minorities rule, period. Whoever has political control of the small, more rural states, controls American politics. None of this is going to change.

Despite their opposition to the proposed Constitution in 1788, the Anti-federalist concerns apparently won in the long run. Whether you think this is a good thing or not, rural still rules.

Please check out other columns at the Iowa Writers Collaborative and consider a paid subscription to keep community-based local journalism and commentary alive as we keep you informed. Paid subscribers are invited to the Office Lounge, a live Zoom call on the last Friday of the month at noon Central time.