The form of the Senate and EC were reached on separate compromises for separate reasons. The Senate being equal representative of states was demanded by a group of a couple small states who basically held the convention hostage. Interestingly, representation in the Senate is the only thing in the Constitution that isn't amendable except by consent of the state(s) who would be affected (so essentially not possible). The EC was a deal about slavery, full stop. They didn't envision a two party system at the time, instead probably a few candidates who would gather regional support. The EC could then function as a sort of parliamentary tool for choosing who could win, with horse trading and the like. It gave the southern states a hedge against all the northern states banding together with a single anti-slavery candidate, since its outsize voting power now gave it enough votes to block a candidate supported only by the north. They were both shitty deals, but it was the price of getting a deal done. Both are vestigial bodies that have no place in a modern world. The Senate, I'm afraid, we're stuck with. The EC could be made moot by the popular election pledge that many states are making into law. Basically the law says that the state will assign all its EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. If states with 269 EC votes adopt this law, the EC problem is solved without a constitutional amendment. Edit: I guess what I want to highlight is that there's an enduring myth that these institutions had some brilliant political theory behind them, that the Founding Fathers had genius and vision, and not that they were the result of shitty people acting like shit heads because they saw that they could get a better deal for themselves. Same as it ever was.
OK, I realize I misread kb's post on that one; the establishment of the Senate was quite literally, as you said, for the purpose of appeasing the smaller states (minority power). I had it in my head that he was arguing that the Senate was established to oppress minority states. Anyway thanks for the reminder that I need to brush up on my constitutional history. Well, maybe that's kind of what makes it brilliant. It wasn't a product of some monarch's self-proclaimed genius, or divine intervention, or academic experts who, given the time period, believed most ailments could be solved by slapping some cocaine on it. Instead, it was a series of power-brokering, leveraging for selfish ends, truly politics as we know it until a compromise was reached. I'd argue that's what makes it a reliable, integral document: its means and motives are no mystery at all, they're unabashedly human. e- then again this whole experiment was designed with great exclusivity by a very small group of people who absolutely loved themselves, so its a flimsy point to make on my part.Edit: I guess what I want to highlight is that there's an enduring myth that these institutions had some brilliant political theory behind them, that the Founding Fathers had genius and vision, and not that they were the result of shitty people acting like shit heads because they saw that they could get a better deal for themselves. Same as it ever was.