> I’m not sure if I can see many first principles justifications for giving rural areas such a mechanism of power The primary justification to give states such

> I’m not sure if I can see many first principles justifications for giving rural areas such a mechanism of power The primary justification to give states such power is that otherwise they might leave the federation. One have to first ask why areas with radically different population density should be governed under the same government, rather than having them rule over themselves. Two clear examples of non-proportional representation is EU and Iceland. EU has given the 3 smallest nations 6 representative each, which is just a bit less than 1% of the total votes. However if EU used proportional representation they wouldn't even get 1 representative, as the smallest one has less than 0.1% of the population in EU. Germany in contrast holds around 13% of the votes, with about 20% of the total populations. Iceland has non-proportional representation for a rather obvious reason. Over 51% of people who live in Iceland live in the capital region. A proportional representation democracy would be identical to a dictatorship. In order to avoid this they gave each rural area just enough representatives so that the sum would have more votes than the capital alone. If all rural area went together they decide, but the capital by virtue of being the biggest region still holds the power in practically all situations.