No, I am not interested in pointing fingers, but the issue is truly of fairness. Why should a vote in Florida or Pennsylvania be less worth than a vote from Utah, only because the EC has been stacked to make sure that the smaller states don't "feel" left out? They are already disproportionally represented as even the smallest of states get 2 EV regardless of population, one for each senator.
Much more fair would be by procent: State A comprises 3% of the US population and would have 3% of 900 electors (27) + 2 for it's Senators = 29 EV. By more than doubling the number of electors corresponding to electoral districts, one takes some of the sting out of the automatic skewing caused by every state automatically having 2 electors for it's senators. In this way, the small states still carry more weight per capita, but less than under the current system.
I'm very much against this proposed change. The number of EVs a state has should correspond directly to the number of congressmen from that state. If you want to increase the size of the House (which would effectively bring the same result) that is fine but I don't think we need to meddle with how EVs are apportioned. The EC was designed to make sure large states still have the most EVs but it was also designed to ensure the small states aren't ignored just because they have less people. The large states already have a big voice because of their population. The smaller states need a little boost to make sure they don't become disenfranchised.
