Most political systems have some degree of protection for rural areas to prevent them from being utterly steamrolled and dominated by the cities. This is true within the United States both on a national and state level, and within a number of places in Europe, Asia, etc.
I think it's fair to argue it's perhaps gone too far, but I'd hope we'd keep a political system where the rural has a bit more power than it'd get just by proportion of the population. The electoral college chooses a mix that is mostly proportional-- 435 of the electors are assigned by population, 103 by underlying government.
Otherwise we're likely to get a system of government where flyover states are completely neglected for infrastructure, etc, if it weren't for the senate and the presidency having some degree of per-state representation in them. I'm not sure that even passes utilitarian tests (are we better off as a country if it goes that way?) let alone fairness tests. Rural areas are both have fundamentally different needs because they are physically removed from the cities (and thus may not benefit from infrastructure/spending in the cities) and because they are fundamentally different places (it's natural to understand a different take on gun rights when you probably know lots of hunters and live somewhere where police response can be expected to be literally 45 minutes away and are fundamentally unlikely to suffer from gun violence or mass shootings).