That's what happens with the census. All states have the same number of electors as they do house reps + senators. So every state has at least three - 2 senators and at least one house rep. That's the floor. With each census, more house seats may be apportioned (or removed) because of population changes. That's why we saw so much angst over the census form - the Trump admin actually lost that round.

All dems hate the electoral college because the population centers on the coasts don't enjoy 1 for 1 popular electoral advantages. But they do enjoy electoral advantages proportionate to their populations. Just that all states get at least some say, whereas many would effectively not in a pure popular vote scenario. Since dem support congregates in the populous coasts and population centers nation wide (the well documented rural-urban divide), its the conservative (now, Trumpie) side of the electorate whose say is protected by the electoral college.

I'm a rare anti-Trumpie who wouldn't change it. I think it's short term thinking to create a system where it really is possible for a few heavily populated regions to dictate. I know the counterarguments about empty tundra getting too much say, fears of permanent minority rule, etc. I think it just means that a candidate enjoying massive dem support needs to appeal to enough of the rest of the country to win, say, Ohio, or MI, or WI, or CO - can't win on just a Berkeley/Cambridge friendly message that brings out everyone in NYC, SF, Boston, and LA.

Seems unimaginable right now, but one day the shoe could find its way to the other foot. And I think things like the senate and the electoral college - neither a darling of the left these days - are a very significant and underappreciated parts of the US's staying power. Most democracies don't make it out of the batters box.
[Post edited by hoolstoptheheels at 02/18/2020 10:22AM]