Return to Answer

This latter paper seems to have a gap in its classification, in that it doesn't seem to consider federal systems that aren't strongly set up on ethnic lines, yet nonetheless have internal boundaries (e.g. US state borders) that are not easy to change.

For better or worse "territorial representation" seems to be a generic term used for this (see quotes toward the end of my post).

A key feature of federal systems is the representation of subnational units by “territorial representatives” in policymaking at the federal level. [...] To be clear, by territorial representation, I refer to the representation of subnational units or states in political decision making at the federal level by regionally, (in)directly elected “territorial representatives.” Territorial representation is typically a core element of the definition of federalism (e.g., Wibbels 2005, 26) and is prominently associated with state representatives in an upper chamber of the national legislature.

Despite the potential ambiguity, "territorial representation" seems to be a generic term used for this (see quotes toward the end of my post).

A key feature of federal systems is the representation of subnational units by “territorial representatives” in policymaking at the federal level. [...] To be clear, by territorial representation, I refer to the representation of subnational units or states in political decision making at the federal level by regionally, (in)directly elected “territorial representatives.” Territorial representation is typically a core element of the definition of federalism (e.g., Wibbels 2005, 26) and is prominently associated with state representatives in an upper chamber of the national legislature.

Unfortunately, for other authors, the term "territorial representation" seems to mean simple districting, which may easily change:

Both ethnofederalism and territorial political representation are institutional solutions to minority representation that depend on the creation of intra-state boundaries. Ethnofederal systems accommodate minority interests by creating substate jurisdictions (regions, provinces, etc.) dominated by a particular ethnic group and by dividing political sovereignty between a central state and regional jurisdictions (Smith, 1995). Ethnofederalism carries the danger, however, that such institutional divisions will reinforce ethnically defined political conflict, leading to conflict, secession, civil war, and perhaps ethnic cleansing (Bunce, 1999; Hale, 2004).

Territorial representation is a less drastic approach because it does not necessarily mean the creation of (relatively) fixed and permanent boundaries, or a division of sovereignty. The United States and the UK, for example, periodically adjust the boundaries of election districts, and (in the United States) do so to further minority representation. In contrast, South Africa dealt with the problem of minority representation during its transition from apartheid by established (relatively) fixed provincial boundaries used for national elections, but without a strong federal system. Finally, the post-invasion administration in Iraq rejected the use of sub-national electoral boundaries in an attempt to emphasize the territorial integrity of the state and to facilitate a favorable level of minority representation.

I don't know if there's more special word for it in general, but in the US it's known as the Connecticut Compromise

Most upper chambers came to serve as bulwarks against the principle of one citizen, one vote. They were conservative, sometimes reactionary, bodies representing the aristocracy, the church, corporatist groups, or territorial communities with premodern roots. Upper houses are in decline. Thirty-six of the eighty-one countries we observe had a bicameral parliament in 2010, whereas forty-three countries had one at the time they enter the dataset. Nineteen of these upper chambers represent territorial communities in 2010. [...]

For better or worse "territorial representation" seems to be a generic term used for this (see quotes toward the end of my post).

In the US, the equal territorial (=state) representation in the Senate is known as the Connecticut Compromise

Most upper chambers came to serve as bulwarks against the principle of one citizen, one vote. They were conservative, sometimes reactionary, bodies representing the aristocracy, the church, corporatist groups, or territorial communities with premodern roots. Upper houses are in decline. Thirty-six of the eighty-one countries we observe had a bicameral parliament in 2010, whereas forty-three countries had one at the time they enter the dataset. Nineteen of these upper chambers represent territorial communities in 2010. [...]

The "territorial representation" terminology seems reasonably widespread with this meaning, e.g.

A key feature of federal systems is the representation of subnational units by “territorial representatives” in policymaking at the federal level. [...] To be clear, by territorial representation, I refer to the representation of subnational units or states in political decision making at the federal level by regionally, (in)directly elected “territorial representatives.” Territorial representation is typically a core element of the definition of federalism (e.g., Wibbels 2005, 26) and is prominently associated with state representatives in an upper chamber of the national legislature.