Wildfires and What Germany Got Right vs. The U.S.

In the U.S. we have a situation that causes large portions of the population to be essentially ruled by others who are utterly unconcerned for their needs and wishes.  Examples include upstate New York and the majority of Washington state excluding the major cities.  Many Californians have a similar problem.  The issue is that the cities dominate the state governments as well as these states contributions to the electoral college.  This in effect was what the electoral college was devised to prevent, but I don't think the founding fathers foresaw the mega-cities.  The problem is that the cities determine the taxes and laws that the citizens in the rural and suburban areas have to live by.  They have very little say in issues that impact them.  If you don't believe it, ask anyone who lives in these areas how they feel about the political situation.  

In Germany their mega-cities are largely treated separately in regards to their representation in government.  They are segregated from being lumped in with the state in which they are geographically located and send their own representatives to the federal level.  Further, they make laws for themselves rather than the whole state where they would overwhelm the rural populations.  

Why is this important?  I'll give you an example of why: California's wildfires.  If the rural areas would have had better representation, the laws that prevented maintaining a timber industry there would never have been passed.  The forest would have been maintained by a private industry with a stake in preventing a disaster.   Anyone in forest management knows that you cannot allow a large fuel load to accumulate on the forest floor or you risk burning the woods to the ground.  With the timber industry regulated out of existence, you had to rely on the government to maintain the wild lands.   

The dominant political forces in the cities believed they were saving bird species and doing good for the environment with their protests and demands for logging to stop.  They were short sighted and ignorant of the unintended consequences.  I wonder how the birds they thought they saved are doing now.  They also impoverished or displaced the people who once worked in the logging industry there.  A two fer.  

My point is if you don't really live in a place you shouldn't have the power to dictate how others live there.  You probably don't understand what they do about the realities.  If you think you do you're simply arrogant and/or ignorant.