Each state gets two Senators regardless of size or population. Much like our Electoral College, the Senate was designed so that smaller states have some power. Congress people are elected as per population. Larger states have more power in Congress, but equal power in the Senate. It's sort of a checks and balances thing.
Now if we elected Senators like Congress, then smaller states would be virtually powerless. Larger populated states would control the entire country, and that would leave a lot of people out of the loop. Their states might not ever get any federal funding, they may not even get disaster relief. No politician would care about them because they would not have enough power TO care about them.
Trump did visit those smaller states that Hillary ignored. Those smaller states still had the electoral votes he needed to win the presidency. Hillary just assumed if she got the EC's of the larger populated states, that would be more than enough to push her into the White House.
Listen, Wyoming has three times the power of a vote than California or Texas. Yet it gets ignored in Presidential elections.
The Crazy, Lopsided Math of Campaign 2016's Ad Spending So Far
Wyoming had $167,000 spent on it by June 10th 2016
Vermont had $204,000
Alaska had $115,000
North Dakota and South Dakota, Deleware and Montana seem to have had nothing spent on them.
Hardly proving your point that the EC forces people to spend money on them.
Florida had $54 million spent on it. For a 20 million population, which is less than 4 times the population of your other 7 states, they spend 108 times the money. Doesn't add up, does it?
Iowa has a population of 3 million. $90 million spent in the primaries. Getting the EC votes of those 7 states before would be far more beneficial to your balanace than getting Iowa. Each of them has 3 votes, Iowa has 6 votes. That's 21 votes with a spending of $500,000 and 6 votes $90 million. Er... what?
The States Where Clinton and Trump Are Advertising the Most Until Election Day
From October 21st to election day advertising spending. Nothing was spent in your 7 states. Completely ignored.
You say Trump visited these states. How much? How much did he visit those states compared to other states.
You misread what I said. When I talk about spending, I'm not talking about election spending, I'm talking about federal aid.
In other words, lets say that Iowa has a tornado and it wipes out streets and homes. The President ignores their woes because we have a popular vote election. Their measly couple hundred thousand voters don't mean crap. Spend that money in California studying lesbian eating habits instead. They have nearly 40 million people, and it's better for a President to spend our money there than anyplace because that's where a lot of votes are.
Well it doesn't really matter, does it. The argument is still the same. In Germany every vote matters. You spend X amount of money on these 100,000 people it's the same as on those 100,000 people.
But then again you haven't backed up your argument. Can you show that other countries end up with a disproportional amount of money compared to the US which you seem to think doesn't have a disproportional amount spent on the larger states? Do you have an argument or are you making this shit up AGAIN and AGAIN?
The United States is not other countries. Our government is different, our citizens are different, our societies are different. What may work there may not work here. What works here may not work there.
For instance let's take their gun stance in these countries. If we ever outlawed guns here, the criminals would be having a picnic because only the police and criminals would have the guns. Much like drugs in this country, you would never be able to stop criminals from getting guns. There would be more armed robberies on the streets, in our businesses, in our homes because there would be no fear for or an armed robber breaking into an occupied house. If Europe loves their restrictions and it works for them, fine, but it would never work here.
Or we can look at Commie Care--the closest thing we have to their socialized medical care. The money went to likely Democrat voters. If you make french fries for a living or sweep floors, you got medical care because of the huge subsides, but french fry makers likely vote Democrat. If you are a middle-class earner or above, you got screwed, and in many cases such as mine, the plans are garbage and simply unaffordable, but we likely vote Republican.
So politicians here do cater to their voters because those are the people that put them and will keep them in power, and they will use federal money to keep them happy. After all, when DumBama got comfortable in office, our food stamp recipients doubled, and it was no accident either.
That's just how our politics works in this country.