"Abhors democracy" isn't necessarily the right phrase for the on-the-ground majority. The leadership, sure. But not the average folk.
"Has such a small imagination that they can't imagine they wouldn't be the majority" is more like it.
For all the old fears of "we need the senate so big cities don't run the country" they have a massive blind spot of there being less diversity of thought, and more of a monoculture, in suburban and rural areas. And they don't realize that because of this they shouldn't be surprised if not everyone agrees with them.
Ever so slightly, definitely not as bad as the senate.
I'm all for doubling the size of the house, but that's more to combat gerrymandering. The larger the size of the house, the harder and less impactful it is to gerrymander. Though before that I'd definitely push for federal anti-gerrymandering legislation.
There's a sizable part of the group that truly believe that cities get more representation than they do, that there are more rural Americans than urban.
And that they are the “real Americans” who make all the money and all of their tax dollars go to pay for lazy city people. Never mind that counties which vote democratic account for over 70% of the GDP. Their entire existence is subsidized by the actual tax payers in cities and they resent us for it.
"Has such a small imagination that they can't imagine they wouldn't be the majority" is more like it.
For all the old fears of "we need the senate so big cities don't run the country" they have a massive blind spot of there being less diversity of thought, and more of a monoculture, in suburban and rural areas. And they don't realize that because of this they shouldn't be surprised if not everyone agrees with them.