Yes but also, people in rural areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in urban areas do.

If democracies like the USA (Canada has a similar problem) simply counted the votes, the majority of the country would be happier with the outcome. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a good thing.

"U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area"

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33....

You might have a system where neither side can force anything down the other side's throat. To do that, you might need something like one legislature where the cities predominate, and another where the rural has more sway. You might call it a "bicameral legislature" or something.

I'm not sure why in a democracy, the majority of people don't have the majority of the power. If they happen to be urban / rural, so be it.

The developed world is becoming more urban because we do not need that many people in the rural industries any more. It's that simple. Fighting for their 'rights' just makes the country non-competitive. We need to actively incentivize and assist those in rural areas find a way of life where the economy is actually happening.

We should measure people not in the amount of land they own or occupy but as individuals, and every one of them should have equal merit in deciding how society is run.

As it is I could have a substantial unequal share in representative interest moving to a sparsely populated state than I would living in a major metro area. There is absolutely no way to consider that as anything other than a mockery of democracy.