Slice it, dice it, cut it any way you want. The real issue is that concentrated metro areas often carry whole states, relegating the hinterlands to a ‘lesser’ status.
The solution is more states, or more countries.
A secondary issue is that the Congress hasn’t added to it’s headcount for over 80 years. We’ve been locked at 435 representatives (except of a couple of years) since early in the last century. That number should be nearly 5000 if we were to pay heed to the founders notion of the population numbers a congress-critter should represent.
More state and more electoral votes would do a lot to level the playing field, and bring some sanity back to the whole (currently) sordid process.
I have been thinking about this for some time, and I think you are right - I don't think it is the whole answer (primary process rigged toward liberal states as another instance), but it is a fairly true statement.
However, your solution is not necessarily the only one: The electoral college is established in order to give lesser states some equality during elections at the federal level... What if the same were done within a state, at the county level... the same basic idea would apply. The winner of the state-wide electoral college would be awarded the electoral votes at the federal level... More populous counties would still have a lot of swing, but limited so that lesser counties still matter.
FWIW, The suburban vote is almost half of the electorate, and rural voters are about 20 %.
That number should be nearly 5000
Good God that is all we need. That financial expense alone makes it not possible.