The top counterargument is, "It's "disproportionate" in the opposite direction (unfair to small states) if you consider small states as equally sovereign to big ones. Population isn't all that matters."
It's "disproportionate" in the opposite direction (unfair to small states) if you consider small states as equally sovereign to big ones. Population isn't all that matters.
Population is indeed what does matter in a democracy, other than some safety measures (i.e. Senate apportionment) to prevent the worst abuses of the majority.
The current system as practiced does nothing to restore proportionality to small states, instead focusing the entire campaign on some dozen 'targets' states.
This is true, but why assume that proportionate representation is the objective? Note the job title: President of the United States, not President of the American People.