Should 100 farmers in Kansas have the same political weight as 10000 people in NYC? If yes, then maybe we should use some form of meritocracy where what people do or who they are matters when it comes to their voting power. Would you like that?
But to answer your question, yes. The people of Kansas, on a federal level, should have meaningful power. Federal laws affect all states, so each state should have a seat at the table.
Let me turn the questions around: how would it be fair for Kansas to have no power federally at all?
New York can pass laws about what happens in New York. But if New York wants to pass laws about what happens in Kansas, the people of Kansas deserve a voice.
States are independent political entities representing very different groups of people. The EU does the exact same thing as the US federal government. If you don't give smaller states some amount of power and respect, there is not reason for them to participate on your federation.
You know who actually has close to no power? Many, many other types of minorities across America. Yet these minorities are not cared about with retorts by you or the other person. It’s only about those farmers in Kansas
How would it be fair for Kansas to have power proportional to its population federally?
Well. That sounds like a very silly question, doesn’t it?
I live in rural NYS. I know farmers, to be sure (there's a community-supported agriculture farm just about 5 minutes' drive away). But despite the fact that a lot of the land around here is farmland, the vast, vast majority of people here are not farmers. They are teachers, shop owners/workers, factory workers, computer programmers, doctors, lawyers....basically everything you get in most places in the country. The only types of people we don't have are the types you only get in the very biggest cities, like hedge fund managers, and the types that only make sense in certain areas, like sailors.
The question isn't and shouldn't be about "should farmers have as much political weight as not-farmers;" it's "should people who live in a mostly-rural state have as much political weight as people who live in a state with big cities"?