Thoughts on out of state moving & local resentment

[Onomea]

You can thank Earl Warren for that. Reynolds v. Sims essentially disenfranchised everyone not living in a big city.

Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia

From the link:

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people....

Seems reasonable to me...

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Before those decisions the New Jersey State Senate had 1 member for each of the state's 21 counties.
I know of a couple of towns in NJ, the people who wanted to live in "the country" complained of the noises and smells of the farms. One farmer sold out to developers who built townhouses and "affordable" housing. Now those same people complain their view is gone, the town has had to build new schools, etc.

 

[delcrossv]

From the link:

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the electoral districts of state legislative chambers must be roughly equal in population. Along with Baker v. Carr (1962) and Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), it was part of a series of Warren Court cases that applied the principle of "one person, one vote" to U.S. legislative bodies.

Prior to the case, numerous state legislative chambers had districts containing unequal populations; for example, in the Nevada Senate, the smallest district had 568 people, while the largest had approximately 127,000 people....

Seems reasonable to me...

Sure, if you're okay with the tyranny of the majority / rule of the mob.

Seems we've forgotten that the founders were deathly adverse to democracy as evidenced by the way the country was set up- to protect the minority from just that. Remember "The Great Compromise"? Without it, we would have been ruled by the 4 or so states with the largest populations.

Those protections have been eroded by creeping democratism happening since the turn of the 20th century.

[/rant]