> The author comes from Pennsylvania, and so this article should be seen as nothing but self-serving.
Of course it's self serving.
But it's undeniable that the current situation isn't fair. One where the vote of a rancher in Wyoming with whom I have absolutely nothing in common politically has orders of magnitude more weight than mine. And the difference isn't only in the senate either.
CA: population per senator: 19M
WY: population per senator: 280k
CA: population per electoral vote: 719k
WY: population per electoral vote: 192k
CA: population per house seat: 746k
WY: population per house seat: 577k
It's indeed true that the situation for senators is by design. One could weakly argue that the situation for the house isn't too bad. But how do you defend a 4x ratio for electoral votes?
It seems to me that the only solution to mitigate this imbalance is to start dialing back the responsibilities of the federal government. (Which I'm not in favor of at all, but what other option is there?)