[mikeash]

This seems to assume that there is some fixed “the minority” that needs to be advantaged in order to be fair, and further that “the minority” corresponds to the smaller states.

In reality, there’s a different minority for every issue. Giving states with low population a disproportionate amount of power doesn’t necessarily balance the minority with the majority. Depending on the issue it may allow the majority to more easily trample the minority, or it may allow a minority to impose its will on the rest.

The solution to requiring cooperation with the minority is to require more than a simple majority to do things. See for example: removal following impeachment, constitutional amendment, treaty ratification, or the de facto situation in the Senate for most legislation at the moment.

[barsonme]

We're a federal republic made up of 50 states plus DC. Balancing the power between _states_ is standard among federal republics (Germany, Switzerland, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, ...).

Federal republics _need_ the power balance among _states_, otherwise there's no point in the states participating in the republic, thus no point in even having a federal republic. If that's your point, fine. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

How states want to balance out things internally is up to them, and that can be used to help the minority on specific issues.

[mikeash]

A federal structure is a means to an end, not the goal itself. If it doesn’t serve the purpose we want then we should change it.

In any case, even if you take the state as the unit that needs to be balanced, my point stands: you can’t balance “the minority” by picking some arbitrary minority and giving them more power.