That’s wildly incorrect.

1) At the time of the founding, the free-state/slave-state dichotomy was almost perfectly orthogonal to the big-state/little-state dichotomy. The plan for proportional representation in both houses was the Virginia Plan.

2) The Missouri Compromise had nothing to do with California being one state. When California was admitted to the union, it had significantly less population than South Dakota and North Dakota did when they were admitted to the union. The subsequent growth of California was an accident of history.

3) State boundaries are absolutely meaningful cultural boundaries. My wife is Oregonian and I’m from Virginia and we’re really different. Even the blue parts of both states are very different.

Also, we have freedom of movement in this country. The precision of the state boundaries doesn’t matter so much given that people can self select to the states that reflect their values.

> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote.

Here in Canada we have the same setup but without the historical baggage of slavery justifying it, so I don't think your reason holds up. There are good reasons for avoiding a tyranny of the majority.

For instance, the less populous states tend to be more rural and make most of your food. The more populous states are more urban and its people largely have little idea how food is made. I'm exaggerating a bit, but maybe give the states that are making your food an equal say in your nation as those that are eating that food.

> No, it was because the slave states didn't want to lose slavery in a Senate vote.

Sorry, that is simply not true. Virginia, a slave state, was by far the most populous state at the time the Constitution was adopted.

"We the People" of? Of what?

No, the Several States are the Sovereigns. They ceded a small amount of authority to the Federal government in a limited Federal Constitution that outlines the powers of the Federal government. See the 10th Amendment.

Well said. Thank you. As a disenfranchised Californian I will bang this gavel until I die. The loss of the SALT deduction hit our finances tremendously. 1. Direct impact via higher taxes. 2. People fleeing the state for lower tax states because without the SALT deduction, we have a race to the bottom infrastructure-wise (not that we didn’t already, but the SALT deduction dampened the effect somewhat).

This is the kind of BS law that can only pass when small states get to run roughshod over large ones.