[forgot_my_pwd]

What a rhetorically weak and unintelligent opening, which shortsightedly ignores that Presidents who won the popular vote in the past have started wars and engaged in infidelity before. The idea that somehow policies and behaviors that the author has a personal problem with would be avoided by bowing to the popular vote is just silly.

> "Equal representation of states in the Senate, for example, gives citizens of low-population states undue influence in Congress."

As for the above quote, I would have expected more from the HLR. The entire reason why Senators are apportioned as they are is to give low population states extra influence. Supporters of progressive economic policy will immediately understand the reason: smaller states should get the same number of Senators as larger states to balance their weakness relative to these states. Similar reasoning is used to justify transfers of wealth from the wealthy to the poor.

One little talked about reason why this is especially good for the country and its people is that it provides an extra check on the impulses of powerful states that may want to push policy which may not be beneficial for the entire country, or is shortsighted.

It stands to reason that small states may have profoundly different perspectives than large states and so by forcing these different perspectives to come to terms with one another better policy will be the result. If one state or region had complete dominance, there would be no opportunity for debate and the benefits of the reflection that such debate forces.

The entire US system is built with the idea of balance in mind and everything is structured so that the various forces in the nation balance one another.