The author's main point is perfectly dead-on. The fact that Nebraska, or worse, Wyoming or the Dakotas, have the same representation in the Senate as California is deeply wrong. The fact that our presidential votes are artificially amplified by the Electorial college is deeply wrong. And the fact that these advantages our justified among ourselves with blatant fuedalism; claims that owning a large chunk of land or even just living in a rural area is proof of moral superiority to the city folk is beyond disgusting.
It would have been better if our forbears had put more weight on population density in setting the shape and size of the respective states, but they didn't. Pre Civil-War tensions, the need to keep Texas and California happy, (When they had the resources to function on their own and knew it.) and various other factors all made this impossible. I myself would even be open to fusing some of the emptier states together, like turning everything north of the Arkansas and between the Missiouri and Rockies into 'Nekada'. ( Lord knows we could use a deepining of the political talant pool so that parasitic hacks like Sam Brownback or Jon Bruning would actually have to compete against someone who might have some qualifications beyond sharing their consituants hatred of modernity and baseless sense of supiriority.) But it isn't going to happen. One thing we could do is to expand the numbers of the House. The UK House of Commons has a membership of 650 serving a population one sixth the size of our own. While here the number was set at 435 in 1911, partially out of fear that large cities with their brown elements might actually gain influence in proportion to their numbers. Tea Party types would be fervantly (mf's get off on being 'fervant') opposed to expanding the House today for precisely this reason, and would be happy to tell you so directly. Still it could be done if a determined movement were to build around it.
Now, in getting to the tone of Bleyer's article; dude, don't be an asshole. Have you actually tried to persuade anyone of anything or what? Corn stretching to the horizon looks beautiful in a summer sunset. Driving through three hundred miles of corn; or a thousand if you're driving from North Platte to Toledo, Ohio? Okay. I could see how that might be a bit much. Still it's not as if it's written in our genes that mountains and beaches must universally be considered more beautiful than flat land. These are personal tastes and no more. Formed by cultural expectations and personal experience just like all arbitary tastes. Now as for Nebraska culture? Needs a lot of work, not going to lie. Years and years of lots of fucking work. There's really nothing to appeal to a hipster leftist like me save for the fact that I am personally somewhat schizoid and actively dislike excitement and noise. (Even when I was doing a regular amount of hard drugs I could still barely abide a real urban club scene. All that God damn touching. Anyway I reveal too much.) There are progressive enclaves in both Lincoln and Omaha, a decent mix of 'ethnic' restaurants, art galleries, cool quiet pubs where you can talk to the same people you've known for twenty years, and national indie still circuit through Omaha on the reg. Nebraska is not just tolerable but even pleasent if you know the right people and the right places, same as anywhere. And don't even bother complaining about the winters because man, this is the twenty first century. What sort of primative freak goes outside anymore?
Finally, for those who must complain about our scenery, in Nebraska it is somewhat of a cliche to lament that if only 'those people' could have brought themselves to twenty miles away from the interstate in either direction. Then they would see how featureless we are. Here you go.