Should big cities with large populations have more of a say with reguards to foreign policy?

the redneck republicans preach there nonsense from some farm in the middle of nowhere. everybody knows big cities are the targets for terrorists and big cities tend to be more liberal. since its NYC,LA,CHI etc who are most prone to attack shouldnt they have more influence reguarding international relations? the hick in iowa or the trailer park resident in alabama want war to escalate,but there butts arent on the line.the civilized city dwellers are generally against war because they know that when our enemies react it is the major cities that will suffer.shouldnt this be taken into consideration. i live in NYC,saw the towers go down with my own 2 eyes.not through a tv that made it feel make believe.so as red states bang the war drum i cringe because i know the electoral college does not favor my situation. i dont mean to offend anybody,but how many military bases on this continent have ever been attacked? there is a reason that they are located in the middle of nowhere. get real.the only places that will get attacked are the major cities.major cities that typically vote against war mongering because we know we have the bullseye on our backs. unless you live in a big and important city you would not undersatnd this very real concern. hell id be down for dropping bombs and boots wherever if i knew that i would be safe from retaliation. sadly that just is not the case.

Public Comments

1. Hello, one vote per person? Anything you aren't relating to about that? Or should New York, cesspool of slime get ten votes per person?
2. Yes, I agree with you. Big cities are underrepresented in both the senate and the electoral college. The House of Representatives is the only place where representation is fair.
3. That is not in the spirit of federalism. Even assuming that cities should have a say in policy matters, in matters of foreign relations, all the constituents of the federal government should have a equal say, whether they are big or small. That, I think, is the reason why Senate in the US has a say in international relations since Senate is representing the interests of all the constituent States who have joined to form the United States.
4. Wouldn't army bases be a target by terrorists as well? If so I live within 20 minutes of an air force base and I live in a red state. Thanks for the hate rant. If we gave discriminatory people like you all the say we would be in a world of hurt right now. Oh, wait, we are. Not all Democrats were against the war ya know. Hillary was one of the number one proponents. If you want someone to blame, blame Congress. They are ultimately the ones who said yes to the war in the first place. I am sorry that you had to see that but it was a long time coming and no one in the U.S. made it happen.
5. Yes. Small states and rural areas have disproportionately more say in our government than urban areas do. It's not fair and has implications such as the ones you have pointed out.
6. In order for that to happen the Constitution would need to be amended. The president (along with his cabinet) decide what the foreign policy shall be while he is in office. Homeland Security money is distributed according to population so NYC and LA are already getting their fair share. [BTW. As a "hick" from a lesser populated state I take offense at your generalization of small-town America.]