I understand that, and the fact that basing yourself on population alone is simple and easy to understand.

But, your rural areas may be over half of your territory. People living there also matter, and the needs of those territories are very different.

Just to bring an example of how the current system backfires:

- we need railroads to reopen so we are able to sell produce to our own industry base competitevely

- we are always told there aren't enough people here, so no railroads. Even though, the primary objective of those wouldn't be to transport people

- we sell our produce to the neighbouring country instead, given it is closer than our own country's industrial hotspots. By selling off raw produce, our country will end up earning less than if it were processed by our own food industry.

- without much economic incentive to remain living there, many will emigrate.

- less people = even less representative power.

The cycle continues...

Now, I don't have a solution. It is a difficult problem to solve. One could be to have a higher minimum number of representatives per region, as the lowest populated region only elects 2, 24 times less than the highest populated one. And, just to show how different the political landscape is when compared to the US: the metropolitan regions have voted way more to the far right and far left parties than the rural regions have, which have led to a lot of divisive political outcomes.