So would you say you're somebody that believes Boston, Phoenix, Denver, Atlanta, Honolulu, Boise, Little Rock, Indianapolis, Providence, Des Moines, Cheyenne, Jackson MS, Charleston WV, Columbus OH, Columbia SC, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City (yes I try to check which state capitals were also their state's largest city) is the better model for a state capital? Largest population isn't the sole criteria about New York since also it's the state's business hub and arts & entertainment hub too.
Yes. I think it's better on democratic principles:
it allows the largest number of state residents (especially poorer and working-class residents) to directly lobby, petition, or protest their government in the same city where they live - rather than having to take a long trip.
likewise, when it comes to state legislators, it hopefully allows the largest number to come from the ranks of the poor and the working-class, because they don't have to bear the increased burdens of commuting or establishing two residences.
similarly, even for voters and legislators who come from outside the city, choosing the largest city for the capital generally means better transportation network connections, which makes for an easier commute.
finally, it hopefully means that by making the problems of the biggest city the problems of the state government when it comes to stuff like transportation, housing, education, public utilities and services, public safety, etc. that there's more of an incentive to do something about them.
Also, I think the historic reasons for state capitals which weren't the extant largest city at time of statehood usually boil down to rural dislike of the big city, which I don't consider a valid reason for important constitutional decisions.
