Here are a few snapshots of life in Canada. The urban and rural environments are so close.
In politics, I do not think the rural-urban divide should or can be breached. Witness Iran or Ottawa city politics. Perhaps it is the most passionate of all political divides. Instead, a model should enable authentic presentation for both interests, some decentralization and greater autonomy. The states-man like behavior for reaching a noble-middle ground would dilute a party's brand, making them inauthentic to core voters, hardly inspiring voters to put cash towards a party.
Yes, there is a tax break in Canada, but there are many flavors of ice-cream to choose from. A party's survival depends on an image of authenticity towards its core group. Not understanding that will cost them votes. Taking that into account, if one party from a predominantly urban or predominantly rural constitutency wins the parliament in a winner-take all single-vote West Minister system, then the interests of the rest of the country would be squashed.
(Me, Divine and Ashely, from the Ottawa, Toronto, etc. Sun article in real life)
Perhaps proportional representation, but not to the extreme Israel and Italy took it with a 1 per cent threshold for a single district multiple vote system. (29 political parties in Israel. Germany's system: 3 parties, and they form coalition governments). A coalition government with a better proportional representation system with some decentralization is perhaps the best real way to bridge the urban-rural divide.