Equality of states vs. equality of people

Periodically, an interesting thought enters my mind. These thoughts aren't always well developed, and they frequently haven't been checked much for validity. I have decided to document one of those ideas while it's still in my head. At this point, I'm not entirely sure if it's positive, negative, somewhere in between, or other.

I have frequently seen comments online about the discrepancy between how many people are represented by senators in small states compared to big states. I have generally viewed this as misleading since senators are not supposed to represent people. They are supposed to represent states. In the Senate, all states have equal representation. This appears to be an attempt to treat states of all sizes as equals.

Imagine for a moment that a single state had 51% of the population. Under such a model, population-based majority rule approaches could potentially eliminate any say from smaller states. Is that fair?

In the early years of our country, small states were worried about being pushed around by larger states. Much of what we see is a compromise solution. Again, I haven't heard this wording elsewhere, but it appears that there was an attempt to balance the equality of people with the equality of states. This makes even more sense when you recognize that the bulk of the power in this country was supposed to be at the state level.

I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers never anticipated how large this country would become. In many ways, our current debates about representation of the people are because we have become far more heavily skewed towards population. The electoral vote clearly tilts things more towards equality of people over equality of states. This balance does not match the original intentions of how this country was supposed to be run.

If we tilted the balance more towards equality of the states, perhaps modern Americans would better understand how our government is supposed to work. If we really want to balance equality of the people with equality of the states, perhaps we should define the balance. Considering how the House of Representatives and Senate are set up, I would be open to a 50-50 split.

What does this mean for the electoral college? There should be an effort to have an equal share of the vote for both population and states. This does not technically need to be connected to the number of senators and representatives. Perhaps electors would have a vote that doesn't count as one. Actually, what I'm suggesting would require a constitutional amendment. We could further reform the system to negate the necessity for the actual electors.

I am going to repeat myself one last time. This is a thought that entered my mind that I wanted to document. This could be a great idea. It could be a horrible idea. I have not taken the time to carefully assess all the pros and cons. At this time, I just don't know.