It’s a hypothetical, of course it’s contrived. Thankfully things break down much more chaotically than just an urban/rural split! That’s not to say there is not a general effect present.

Here’s another way to think of it. How many congressional votes does Los Angeles get before it’s people are adequately represented? Right now I believe it’s 18.

Even at that level their vote per capita is technically 3:1 less powerful than a person in WY. But whose interests are being served better in Congress?

Is the population of LA really disenfranchised in Congress due to WY getting a representative, or because LA didn’t get 30?

There’s a power effect which is very much non-linear due to the individual votes in Congress being decided on a win/loss by majority or super-majority and this effect already greatly benefits these so-called “disenfranchised” voters.

The city/rural divide in American political rhetoric is mostly a populist dog-whistle for the conflict between secular progressivism and Christian conservative identity politics.

There are legitimate issues with agricultural funding, infrastructure and whatnot that fall along those lines but mostly when people say they don't want "small state X run by California" or "New York" what they mean is they don't want Federal laws passed which force those small states to adopt more progressive or leftist policies than their local culture would be comfortable with.

Right? As I was reading GP, all I could think is that there are a million other instances of an issue having two interested but opposed parties, one being larger than the other, and in advanced pluralistic democracies, we generally find ways to balance the two interests that don’t involve completely hosing one party. I recognize that the Electoral College was developed in a context where people were very concerned about tyranny of the majority, but it’s a drastic solution to a not altogether exceptional problem.