Everyone agrees that ND/SD do not have twice the power of CA in determining who is elected president.
I've heard this on RT w/ Bill Maher so much I've lost count. What about IL, NY? After all their state populations are a fraction of CA.... To the point-what is your arbitrary threshold of acceptable on this? It's a crap argument.
Fine merge the Dakotas, but then merge Vermont with NH and possibly Maine, Delaware with MD....though I doubt you'd find those latter items palatable.
Its def not a crap argument. Not in the slightest. And I wasnt arguing for merging states. The Senate was originally established to solicit for the benefit of State's rights which is why Senators weren't originally elected. They've become something different now that they are elected. But they still reflect that all states have equal representation in the Senate, where as the citizenry is reflected by the House. I think having a bicameral Congress with both elements makes sense - will of the people vs State's rights.
And let me be clear I was making an analogy using state power in the Senate. I was typing that as my flight was taking off so I had to be brief and later realized it might not have been clear. And where they are similar is as a check against the rise of Popularism and the idiocracy of the people, as well as to protect the will of the minority.
And FWIW your argument is purely a slippery slope fallacy.