That is correct. The state legislatures generally (if not always) picked the senators, but due to huge state corruption, it was almost always political qui pro quo, and some states even going full terms without selecting sla sentaor. This led to the 17th amendment (which you'll here rednecks and/or white supremacists asposing, because states' rights.)

Edit to add: Wikipedia knows it better than I do.

This is correct, and this part of the system works fine. What should have happened though is a population break point where a state has to break up if they exceed a certain population. CA should be at least 3 states. New York needs a split as well, probably a few others. There is no way a state can serve its population well when the population is measured in the tens of millions.

It may be one of those myths, but I remember that one of the founders initially were proposing the constitution to be rewritten every 10 years.

I mean, that's most governments

Them plus the house reps, which are artificially capped at a low number, again benefitting the low population states

Diddnt they cap the amount of house of representatives?

In Germany we have two votes, one for a local representative and one for a party. In itself it's a pretty decent system

But then the poor would run the country instead of a handful of unimaginably rich individuals! What kind of democracy would THAT be?

But look at the US popular vote. Even with different representation of the populace, this election would still have been fucked. We do need massive reform of the US voting structure, but this is not the biggest thing. Getting rid of first past the post in favor of at least ranked choice would make a much bigger difference.

That would open the door for a true left wing party to actually have a voice.

I moved to a red state. Absolutely awful. Don’t do it. Texas is an irremediable shit hole.

Half a million movers per month would both wreck California and rural states real quick.

Lol if enough democrats moved to texas and flipped it blue, we would never have a republican president again.

Why don't the more populous states, the larger of the two groups, simply eat the small states?

The reapportionment act of 1929 is screwing us over in the electoral college. The House should have a LOT more representatives, which would make the it more fair.

But more representatives would make it more difficult for big businesses to bribe them, and nobody is going to vote to dilute their personal power, so changing that is a nonstarter.

Disagreeing with the intention of some 1700s guys is extremely low IQ?

to be fair? fuck that. the states represent people, just arguing 'states rights' is disingenuous at this point.

land shouldn't vote, but the way our government currently is functioning, regardless of what our slaveholding 'founding fathers' intended, is an absolute mess.

and I don't accept your argument in good faith.

edit. a word

It wouldn’t be any more fair if California was making the decisions for 20 other states

U wot

Electorates per capita work better because they give the population of a country an equal amount of electable government. Positioning them as just Californians makes them a lower class citizen of the United States with lesser representation.

It also means that criminals will recognise the power of the Republican states and side with them for effect.

No, it would be fair if California and the 20 other states had the same say. Laws should be by people, for people. Every person should have the same voting power and political representation. In a democracy, people vote, not land, or "states", or anything else. People.