You're assuming that there isn't a pizza store called "Pizza!" and a restaurant called this old shoe that serves shoes.

Sort of. The idea is to avoid giving California power to decide policy for the entire country.

Not in a straightforward manner, no. One vote is just one vote. Most states are winner takes all, so the simple majority winner of, say, California takes all the electoral votes in California. It just so happens that California has less electoral votes per capita than states like Wyoming.

Well the senate is composed of 2 legislators from each state, so technically and in practice smaller states can band together effectively and distort policy that a majority of the people would be for. Theres a strong argument that my vote in Maine carries more political weight than a vote in california when it comes to the senate. This has allowed the southern states to drag their feet on policy over the years, and caused a lot of questions about representation in the country. So moving down the line, our presidential elections use an electoral college where house seats (which are restricted and tied to the population + senate seats = EC votes) So when it comes to electing presidents a state like maine with 1M people is punching way above its representation weight compared to california. Most of the EC votes are winner takes all which is the reason why california votes blue and alabama votes red for the president. Its also the reason why Nebraska and maine split their votes to offer people fair represenation in their districts.

TLDR: Yes and its mathematically supported

votes from certain states aren’t worth more than votes from other states in America

There you go. Though, for the record: votes from certain states are worth more than votes from other states in America.

Ed: Where should we eat? I say pizza.

Ann: Pizza!

Ty: Pizza!

Liz: Pizza!

Ed: Alright, pizza it is! Oh, right, I forgot we have to figure out what the voters will eat. I guess they can have this old shoe. Now, back to pizza!

The Senate was never designed to be proportionate to a state's population. The House was.

It's fine to be against the idea of the Senate, but you should at least make sure you understand why it was created in the first place. That is, to create a union of states where each one has a certain level of autonomy.

The Senate is meant to represent each state's individual interests in a national legislature.

Sometimes the interests of a local municipality don't perfectly align with the interests of a state writ large. Which is why we have two houses: one to represent each state, and one that's proportionate to population and represents the districts within a state.

The real issue, in my opinion, is the Reapportionment Act of 1929 that put a hard cap on the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 seats.

I almost missed the sarcasm lol. Woooosh

Thank goodness that will never happen

Hold on now, Liz only wants everyone else to eat shoes - she still wants pizza for herself! That's what she's gonna get, right? ...Right?

"I'm so tired, I could eat a horse"

This has been the electoral college