Similar weight of vote comes from the additional member system. If your vote is overrepresented at the constituency level it is underrepresented at the additional-member level.

Let's start from the opposite end. I would vehemently oppose 736-member E_ wide party lists. People would usually vote paying attention to at most the top 2 people in each party's list, or the top one and the top compatriot. It really makes a lot of sense to have constituencies with a small number of seats (using transferable votes to ensure proportionality). But to insist on even-sized constituencies leads to redistricting nonsense including gerrimandering. So you want

1. small constituencies with STV
   
2. a sizeable number of seats elected on overall party lists
   

The Penrose method evens out the size of the constituencies.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.