The simplest would be to weight one's vote by some non-decreasing function of the number of people who live in the same conurbation.
That would partially achieve the outcome and also makes sense, because if someone wants to live in isolation, then they probably don't care and aren't affected very much by society's policies, and they don't have enough social experience to be correctly informed.
> if someone wants to live in isolation, then they probably don't care and aren't affected very much by society's policies
Or they care too much, or society has driven them away, or they just don't like the population density, or it's cheaper, or they like the countryside better. See: the increasing number of people moving to the country and the popularity of Musk's Starlink project, indicating that remote people are invested in society.
I think that making the assumption that the people who live closer together have a better handle on how to run the country (society != country) needs a lot of justification. The large fraction of the population that lives less densely should not be disregarded as somehow 'less valuable'.
As I referenced above, the last time we tried to weight the value of different people it didn't turn out to be such a great idea. Skin color (the 3/5ths compromise, if you didn't get the reference) or geographic location, the value of a person or their vote shouldn't be tampered with.
That would partially achieve the outcome and also makes sense, because if someone wants to live in isolation, then they probably don't care and aren't affected very much by society's policies, and they don't have enough social experience to be correctly informed.