I would suggest that one theme here that might have some explanative power is the concept of "identity." One's sense of self has quite a few implications. For a lot of people, "nation" constitutes a significant component of that sense of identity and is, functionally, integral. Simply "being heard" does contribute to the acceptance of a decision, but will NOT suffice if being heard runs counter to one's sense of self as identified nationally or culturally.

For you, Horetore, being Norwegian is very different from the sense of Norwegian-ness that was likely applied to their own identities by, for example, your grandparents. Being part of a nation is, for you, secondary to other factors in defining your sense of self.

As to the USA:

Under the original interpretation of the Constitution, we were THESE United States and not THE United States. So cultural and tax concerns relevant to Bostonians were supposed to be the purview of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and not of the state of Mississippi precisely BECAUSE the founders felt that the best means to address the issue should be the collective decision of those affected thereby. The Federal government was the means to address international interaction and to address only those concerns that impinged upon several of the states at the same time. It was only after the arrogation of authority by the federal government that Lincoln used to win the Civil War that the USA began to emphasize the federal government over the states. The shift in power was, in retrospect, a fundamental alteration of how we did business.