That’s an interesting thought. The United States Senate has two senators for each state, while the US House is propotionally represented. While an urban state like New York State recieves 29 representives, we only get two senators, a rural state like Vermont recieves only 1 representive and 2 senators.

In theory, that would mean a rural state like Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, or even Iowa would have have a disproptionate impact on the legislation through the US Senate. While it’s true that such states have more of a voice in the US Senate, it’s not clear rural residents get more representation in the US Senate.

Why not? For one thing, US Senate districts are larger. Much larger, typically covering whole states. The problem is that by representing complete states, every senator represents both urban and rural areas, and in most states, urban populations outnumber rural portions of states.

If any thing, urban consituencies have more power in the US Senate then the US House. There are representives in US House Districts that are predominately rural, in contrast to even rural states, where population is dominated by urban centers — such as Burlington, Vermont.