[Grishnakh]

No, if we redraw all the state borders, it should actually benefit the ruralites on average. The problem is, right now, the ruralites are lumped in with urbanites they don't agree with, and redrawing the borders would fix this. I'll give some examples:

1) New York. "Upstaters" are always complaining about NYC's influence on their politics and laws. With sensibly redrawn borders, NYC would be in its own state, combined with northern NJ, much of CT, etc. People in the rest of the state north of White Plains or so would now be in their own state. So they'd be able to make their own laws without any influence from people in NYC and its suburbs.

2) Chicago. People in southern Illinois have long complained about Chicago's influence on their laws. A redrawing of borders would probably group Chicago together with Gary IN, maybe Milwaukee, and southern IL would be a separate state (maybe combined with Cincinnati or other cities near there).

3) DC. What do the ruralites in far-west Maryland have in common with people in Baltimore or DC? Redrawing state borders would probably group that region in with WV or southwest PA, which they'd probably prefer. Also, people in southern and southwest Virginia complain about the people in NoVA. A redrawing of boundaries would surely group NoVA in with DC (and probably Baltimore), separating it from the rural parts of VA. So instead, the main urbanites the rural Virginians would have controlling their politics would be in Richmond, Roanoke, maybe Bristol, Charlottesville, and maybe the Hampton-Roads area (if that doesn't get combined with eastern NC instead). These are all cities that are much more reflective of rural Virginians' values than the DC area, and they'd probably be happier with the governance they'd get without NoVA voters.