There is little evidence that they lead to better government.
Get rid of winner take all and do proportional representation voting. There is plenty of evidence that it leads to more voices participating in government, which is what is best.
Of all the issues I care about, almost none of them are specifically tied to the state I live in.
Then there are probably a large number of issues that you should care about, but you are poorly informed on. The economic condition of the area and business you are in will be influenced by many factors that bear a relation to government policies.
Also, for example: Urbanites VS people living in Rural areas have conflicting objectives and needs... on some major issues, such as guns (People living in Rural areas definitely cannot rely on a rapid police response, therefore, owning some heavy weaponry such as "Assault rifles" can be essential).
Geography is quite important. Matter of fact.... Fair and like representation Of different communities, regardless of their size, is important. To give only representation to people or groups and not people in different geographies is called taxation without representation, since, then the geographies with low populations are not getting a vote comparable to the vote that larger communities get in the process.
It's not alright if I live in a small community or village, and all of my tax dollars get spent on projects which mostly only benefit those living in large communities, such as Metropolitan city areas.
That's exactly what happens, if there is no geographical element in the representation.
New York City and San Francisco get all the federal economic development, infrastructure development, and public works moneys, while Xyz, Montana gets stuck with nothing, zip, nada.
Also, they want to charge tax rates set at a level appropriate to communities where the cost of living is higher. The economic conditions, such as prices for goods, or for housing, basic essentials, and utilities, in different parts of the country are quite different. It is not cool when the feds impose these various taxes at a higher rate more suited to other areas of the country, causing certain products to be unobtainable in smaller areas or extortionately expensive.
Also, They exploit public resources in a way that hurts the local population, and funnel the royalties/proceeds to other states with higher concentrations of people.
For example: The way the federal gov't allows offshore drilling which deals tremendous damage to some states' wetlands, then allocates the proceeds from federal royalty proceeds to benefit almost entirely to states such as California and Florida who have higher populations.
If anything, there is a lack of proper geographic representation, and should be more representation for sparsely populated geographies such as Alaska, which is unfairly underrepresented.