There are tons of gerrymandered states that result in states' politicians not reflecting the wishes of the majority of the voters, and it's always the rural areas benefiting from the gerrymandering.
The reason for the above is that there are so little population ( less than 650,000 )in the whole state.
These 7 states each have TWO senators. The reason for this is this is how the country was formed giving 2 senators to each state in the constitution. These 14 senators are always Republican and see their weight on 100 seat Senate.
so two reasons why US cannot reflect the wishes of the majority of the voters.
1/ fourteen senators from 7 states ( with a population less than 650,000) elect the same Republican senators for decades ( think about their influence on judicial judge selection and every other decision senate make)
2/ as you mentioned, state-level gerrymandered ( in bigger population states) electing more House reps of Republicans even though their vote share is less than 50%
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representativ...
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/5/17991950/how-gerrymandering-wor...
California with 40 Milion population 2 senators, to 2 senators for these 600,000 population for each of these 7 states.
And how many of those two CA senators are GOP? Guess those 7 states are more diverse than CA.
I'm not saying what you've said isn't true. I'm saying it doesn't matter in practice.
Gerrymandered or not if the cities want something they get it. The only time rural areas get a real say is if the cities are split on an issue or if the suburban areas split disagree with the cities. NY, MA and VT are good examples.