Yeah, I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Some of the founding fathers that it was fair to give people in smaller states equal representation in the Sena

Yeah, I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. Some of the founding fathers that it was fair to give people in smaller states equal representation in the Senate and part of the electoral college, because they didn't want them to be effectively ruled by the people in cities. I can understand why many people think its unfair, but there's at least an argument to be made that it should exist. OP was saying he has only met people who think it is unfair, but you are pointing out that it exists for a reason. I do think there is some concern with having people in cities effectively rule over those outside of cities. I could see it resulting in poor economic outcomes for those outside of cities, since rural areas and cities tend to have very different economies. This could lead to some poor outcomes. Like rural areas becoming even less populated, even more political unrest and division, etc. I also think that the effect of the electoral college giving some individuals more of a vote doesn't come close to the effect wealth gives. Wealth will always generate way more of a "vote" then living somewhere like Wyoming.