This study (I think it has since been updated)

https://news.siu.edu/2018/08/081018-research-shows-state-fun...

Shows that on average it is about 3x. There are more detailed per-county numbers available in the actual study.

The real losers are the suburban counties surrounding Chicago. Cook County is only slightly shafted.

Yeah, pretty much in line with what I was seeing. Just depends on where the lines are drawn for downstate/southern.

https://www.farmweeknow.com/policy/state/state-tax-dollars-b...

Right. So anyway, if various states (or the whole country) breaks apart based on urban/rural divides, the urban areas have very little incentive to try to reunite. It’s a losing proposition for the rural areas.

My personal opinion is that our state and nation legislatures have way too few members given our current populations. For example, the US House should have some sort of dynamic membership count: the smallest odd number such that when you run the apportionment algorithm the smallest state has 3 members. That’s probably somewhere around 1100 members (just spitballing).

Economics aren't the only factor, so the rural areas may not care so long as they are free. That also assumes the rural areas keep the same service levels and regulations. It's possible they could create conditions to lure some industries to them. They would also have to raise food prices to deal without subsidies. It's likely many services would see reductions, such as road maintenance, anything heavily relying on grants, and possibly schools. Certainly the colleges in the article would be closed.

Decreasing the ratio of constituents to representatives won't really work. It may work at the margins, but you will still have the mismatch in proportions between urban/rural.