[Freedom4US]

Somebody smarter than I should be able to provide some context on why this happens.

It isn’t well known now, but most states had a local equivalent to the federal Electoral College system. The idea was, rural counties in a state would not be dominated by one or two large cities. The federal supreme court ruled that was unconstitutional and mumbled something about “one man one vote” or something.

I think this is chickens coming home to roost. But I’m not sure.

[jjotto]

Reynolds v. Sims, 1964

Enshrined the rule of corrupt cities over their states.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Some state legislatures had a house that was appointed geographically, such as with one or two state Senators per county, meaning, like you said, that one or more big cities couldn't dominate the entire state. Alabama, for example, had one state Senator per county.

Then Reynolds v. Sims ruined the whole thing in 1964 by mandating, unconstitutionally, that all state legislative houses have representation proportional to the population (one man, one vote).

[Publius]

Look up Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr.

[Jacquerie]

For more background on the egregiously wrong from the start one-man-one-vote Scotus nonsense:

Progressing the Constitution: One Man, One Vote (Part I of V).