So, first off, the article's headline and subheadline/abstract blurb talk refer to a party. What the article actually proposes is not a political party but a per-state nonpartisan group that approves/disapproves of politicians based on how their policies effect urban areas.
Second off, the author presumes that local politics are nonpartisan because the stakes are higher at local levels than at state and federal levels. I think the actual reason is that running a campaign at the state or federal level needs a lot more funding. The support of a political party's machine is necessary in order reach all voters and convince enough of them to vote for you.
Third, the author proposes to start at the state and local levels. The 50 most populous cities in the US are located in only 29 states (plus DC). A lot of states don't have cities.
I would characterize the following states as not having any cities to speak of based on the size and density of their largest towns: Alaska, Arkansas, Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. That's 17 out of 50; over 1 in 3 states.
You're looking at overall density but not actual population centers. Over forty percent of Maine's population is located in the Portland metro area. Over eighty (!) percent of Alaska's population is in the greater Anchorage area. Large and sparsely populated states consolidate more in city centers, not less, which is why it makes so little sense that rural residents have so much more relative worth to their votes.
It would be a terrible idea to give Portland any more power to swing things in the state of Maine than it already has. Already, there's some pretty big tensions because Portland and its suburbs can effectively dictate to the rest of the state - and the situations in Portland and Scarborough are quite a bit different than the realities of Fort Kent, or Rumford, or Calais.
It would be nice if we could give different areas greater levels of autonomy, but with the way that government funding structures work, that is unlikely.
My definition of "city" is stricter than most so perhaps a lot of Americans would disagree with me. Even taking that into account, perhaps I was not loose enough with my definition.
Anchorage has a population density of 170 people per square mile. Portland, ME has a population density of 3,100 people per square mile. For reference, Providence, RI - not a megalopolis by any stretch of the imagination - has a density of over 9,000 people per square mile. I think it is a bit of a stretch to call either Anchorage, AK or Portland, ME "a city". They might be very nice suburban towns. They might have a high concentration of their respective state's populations. That does not mean that the voters in those places will want the same policy adjustments that voters in, say, Pittsburgh or Minneapolis will want.
Second off, the author presumes that local politics are nonpartisan because the stakes are higher at local levels than at state and federal levels. I think the actual reason is that running a campaign at the state or federal level needs a lot more funding. The support of a political party's machine is necessary in order reach all voters and convince enough of them to vote for you.
Third, the author proposes to start at the state and local levels. The 50 most populous cities in the US are located in only 29 states (plus DC). A lot of states don't have cities.
I would characterize the following states as not having any cities to speak of based on the size and density of their largest towns: Alaska, Arkansas, Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. That's 17 out of 50; over 1 in 3 states.