In arguments about the Electoral College, a background fact you'll commonly hear cited is that the current system disproportionately favors rural voters. Some find this inherently unfair, and others believe it a salutory feature.

It just happens not to be true. 1/6

There are 46.4M Americans in counties designated "rural" by the Census.

31 states and DC enjoy more representation in the EC than in the overall population.

But in fact, more rural Americans live in under-represented states (52.9%) than in over-represented states (47.1%). 2/6

What the EC *actually* favors is swing states. And 75% of Rural Americans do not live in one of the 11 states decided by less than 10 points in 2016.

What's more, while Rural Americans are 14.1% of the U.S. population, they're only 13.2% of the population of swing states. 3/6

Then there's the question of what makes a STATE "rural." In all but two states, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. The tendency of the Electoral College will be to completely disenfranchise rural residents of states that are overwhelmingly not rural. 4/6

There are 4M rural residents of the 6 states that are more than 50% rural, compared to 4.7M rural residents of states that are less than 10% rural. Expanding the definitions some, there are 6.7M rural residents of states more than 40% rural, but 13.7M in states less than 15%. 5/6

So how many swing states are more than 40% rural and over-represented in the EC?

One. Maine. Which also awards 2 of its 4 EVs by CD.

The EC does a lot of strange things, but those things are mostly arbitrary. Nothing so coherent as intentionally overweighting the rural vote.