I am not convinced that it is a postive goal of the Electoral College (i.e. an outcome that was actively designed for by the drafters). A lot of these parts of the US Constitution reflect the desires of the slave holding states to create an electoral sytstem buffer on abolution - see also the considering of slaves to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of assigning electoral districts and so on.
There is some protection for smaller states in the composition of the Senate. Each state, regardless of size, has two Senators. Wyoming has one Senator per 280 thousand people. California has one per 19 million.
There is also a little protection in the House of Representatives, as each state gets a minimum of one Representative. North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming would not have a whole representative to themselves if the Representatives were stricly apportioned by population. The way the seats are allocated is a bit hit and miss for smaller to medium sized states.
Whether the whole of those three factors is enough of a protection for smaller states and the right kind I don't know. It gives smaller states (in theory) more Presidential focus and more electoral clout, especially in the Senate. This in theory should allow them a better chance of at least blocking action they don't like or trading stuff they need for stuff other people want.
I think fundamentally I'm a little bit wary of changing one part of a constitution without considering how it works with other parts. I'm also wary that my support for this measure is driven by my left of centre desire to see a Democrat in the White House.
(Although NB, as my dad once remarked, it might be better for the US to have a Democrat in the White House, it might not be better for us. See the Cuban Missile Crisis for example.)
no subject
There is some protection for smaller states in the composition of the Senate. Each state, regardless of size, has two Senators. Wyoming has one Senator per 280 thousand people. California has one per 19 million.
There is also a little protection in the House of Representatives, as each state gets a minimum of one Representative. North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming would not have a whole representative to themselves if the Representatives were stricly apportioned by population. The way the seats are allocated is a bit hit and miss for smaller to medium sized states.
Whether the whole of those three factors is enough of a protection for smaller states and the right kind I don't know. It gives smaller states (in theory) more Presidential focus and more electoral clout, especially in the Senate. This in theory should allow them a better chance of at least blocking action they don't like or trading stuff they need for stuff other people want.
I think fundamentally I'm a little bit wary of changing one part of a constitution without considering how it works with other parts. I'm also wary that my support for this measure is driven by my left of centre desire to see a Democrat in the White House.
(Although NB, as my dad once remarked, it might be better for the US to have a Democrat in the White House, it might not be better for us. See the Cuban Missile Crisis for example.)