It's not totally nuts. States with smaller populations wanted to make sure that they would not be drowned out by larger states and built that into the deal for joining the USA. Without that, there would not be the USA with residents wondering why we give extra representation tot eh states with smaller populations, so it's kind of a self-fulfilling question.
The whole money thing is largely the result of money based capitalism, with rural resource extration (mining, farming, etc.) areas having less money than urbal production areas (factories, offices etc.) as the cost of a toaster will always be greater than the cost of the materials that go into the toaster.
I'm actually perfectly happy with wealthier blue areas subsidizing poorer red areas. I am well aware that the food I get at the store comes to the store from someone working somewhere else.
Little less happy about those people calling me a lazy parasite as they take my money though. Even less happy when they think they should tell me how to live my life, and start asking for far more than their share of the power.
I mean, yes. That is how it was structured, but only really for the Senate. The House of Representatives was NOT supposed to give more power to the smaller states per capita. That's why we have two houses of Congress, the Upper (Senate), and the Lower (House of Representatives.)
It was a way for smaller states to have SOME say, but not for them to be able to have such overwhelmingly over-representation. It was only in 1929 with the Permanant Apportionment Act where they set the House at strictly 435 members. Nevermind the fact that 2 more states would eventually join the union, and the fact that some states would naturally grow even more disproportionately larger than others. When you throw in the guaranteed minimum of 3 Representatives for every state, that's where the larger states are having less and less and less say per voter.
Basically, if you look at the math, there is no way for the larger states to have the actual Constitutional power in the House that they are MEANT to have. In essence, the Apportionment Act of 1929 is unconstitutional. And since the presidential electors are based on the number of districts each state is apportioned, that's yet another portion of the federal government where the majority of Americans do not have the proper representation. And since the president gets to nominate the SCOTUS justices, and the House gets to approve, that's YET ANOTHER portion of the federal government where the larger states are unconstitutionally misrepresented.
Obviously, there was a practical reason for the House to be limited to 435 members in 1929. There is only so many members that can safely and comfortably fit inside of a finite-sized chamber. However, this is now the 21st century, and we no longer need to be restricted to the size of a physical chamber inside of a physical building. There is no reason why they can't use 21st century technology. There's no reason why they can't construct another chamber to expand the House, for overflow purposes in case too many representatives show up in person for a particular meeting of the House members. As I understand it, not every representative shows up in person for every meeting for voting sessions anyway.
At the VERY least, we COULD do away with the electoral college altogether. At least give the presidential elections into the hands of the majority of voters. The easiest way to do that, is for a few more states to pass what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would effectively nullify the electoral college through an interstate agreement for all states who signed on, to throw all of their electoral votes behind the popular vote winner. Before this compact can go into effect, they need enough states that equals 270 electoral votes. Right now, we have enough states that have enacted this that equals 209 electoral votes. With three more states pending that equals another 34 votes. If those three states (Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Kansas) enact it, then we only need two more states to enact this compact for it to go into effect, to effectively bypass the electoral voting system altogether without the need for a constitutional amendment to revise it.
The Compact mentioned above would at least bring us closer to what the Constitution itself actually calls for: More representation in the hands of the larger states, at least for presidential elections. The issue with the large states being unconstitutionally under-represented in the House would still need to be fixed. And all that needs to be done, is repealing the 1929 Apportionment Act, which is NOT a Constitutional amendment. Which means that the Supreme Court COULD rule it unconstitutional, as it ought to be. Or Congress could just simply repeal it altogether.
If the majority of voters were able to get what they want, as they should, it would encourage a higher voter turnout with people happier with the results, and therefore, happier with the government. A populist getting low-education, low-information voters to vote for him, like Trump, would be a lot less likely to occur.
