Thinking of ones that haven't already been mentioned:
-Basically any defense of the Electoral College, especially the idea that it forces candidates to campaign across the country instead of just the most populated states, when it just disenfranchises tons of people like the conservative parts of California and all the blacks in the Deep South, and just means that only a handful of large swing states matter. It does the opposite.
-People who act like it's unfair that a candidate can win a state election or the popular vote with just a few urban counties with the vast majority of the state's geography voting against them. The funny thing is that the reasoning is usually that it's not fair for some area and demographic to be able to dominate the rest of the state on a numerical advantage and candidates should need to have a broader appeal, but such urban counties are much more diverse and have a broad range of interest groups than a ton of tiny rural counties.
I guess I'd agree with that.
Coming where I come from, similar beliefs about Detroit are all too common, they I don't protest them. They seem fitting.
I guess I'd agree here, but of course in the opposite direction.
