Is malapportionment ever justifiable?

[Nichlemn]

Vote for all that apply.

I vote #2 - I don't think there's anything wrong with having a very small deviation in order to avoid splitting a town - but this deviation should be quite limited in most cases.

However, I very much disagree with how the Canadian Parliament overweights slow-growing provinces like Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, and the apportionment of the US Senate. Most arguments I see in favour of malapportionment are along the lines of "if it wasn't for malapportionment, the big states/provinces/cities would outvote the rest" or that "the House represents the people, the Senate represents the states".

The first argument presents itself as being against the "tyranny of the majority", a phenomenon I acknowledge exists. However, it only focuses on one possible majority coalition – a specific geographical one. Yes, it is possible that say, representatives from the ten most populous US states could vote in a bloc to benefit themselves at the expense of the smaller states, and the US Senate would provide a check against this. But this is also possible for any conceivable bloc you can think of – above-average income districts, below-average income districts, Eastern districts, Western districts, you name it. In fact, any of those seem more logical coalitions than large states. Texas, for instance, has a lot more in common with Oklahoma than it does with its fellow big state New York.   

The second argument employs the infuriating technique of personifying states. States don't have rights or preferences. They are legal entities ostensibly existing for the benefit of their residents. That's not to say that all powers should be centralised – it's that the main purpose of a federal system is to decentralise decision-making for the benefit of the residents, not for the benefit of the abstract concept of “Texas”. 

[Nichlemn]

Edited first post to include my thoughts.

[Nichlemn]

If the lesser populated areas were not given an equal voice than they would smiply not be of equal importance. And one cannot possibly make the claim that they are not of 'equal importance' just because less people live there...

Er, why not? Areas don't have voices. People have voices. What you're claiming is that some people should granted bigger voices than others simply because they live in arbitrarily defined low population areas.

[Nichlemn]

Your poll is biased.

You refer to "rural" electorates. I ask you is this rural:

http://goo.gl/maps/0zTs

this?

http://goo.gl/maps/natU

Most people would say yes.

How about this:

http://goo.gl/maps/XY3a

Or this?

http://goo.gl/maps/cBvp

Or this?

http://goo.gl/maps/Js5h

More people will read this post than are in the three maps. These are not "rural" areas. These areas are "empty".

Canadians believe that citizens deserve accessibility of their MP. If one riding/district is the same physical size as an urban riding in NZ, and another is the same size as 20 NZ's then there is a clear problem in accessibility, especially if both have equal population bases. You will have a hard time finding Canadians to disagree with this.

On the flip side, Australians will agree with your viewpoint, despite having an equally empty country; because of gerrymandering - something that we've not seen here (outside a few choice ridings in parts of Quebec, provincially)

The poll question wasn't exclusive to rural electorates, it was merely using them as an example (see: e.g rural electorates). I could have used "large geographical areas". But it's a fill-in-the-blank question anyway - I wanted it to be open to whatever justification you think is valid to systematically weight some kinds of electorates.