You're greatly exaggerating, the difference between New York and Kansas elector-per-capita is less than a factor of two.

But to answer your question, yes. The people of Kansas, on a federal level, should have meaningful power. Federal laws affect all states, so each state should have a seat at the table.

What is "meaningful" power? Why should 3 million people (Kansas) have the same influence on federal laws as 40 million people (California)? How is this fair?

They don't have nearly the same power on a federal level. But the people of Kansas do have some power, thanks to the Senate. New York has much more power in the House than Kansas.

Let me turn the questions around: how would it be fair for Kansas to have no power federally at all?

New York can pass laws about what happens in New York. But if New York wants to pass laws about what happens in Kansas, the people of Kansas deserve a voice.

States are independent political entities representing very different groups of people. The EU does the exact same thing as the US federal government. If you don't give smaller states some amount of power and respect, there is not reason for them to participate on your federation.

That is so over the top as is this whole senator stuff to say Kansas would have no power. As sibling says, it would be proportional at worse.

You know who actually has close to no power? Many, many other types of minorities across America. Yet these minorities are not cared about with retorts by you or the other person. It’s only about those farmers in Kansas

If we believe all people are equal, 40 people should have proportionally more power than 3 people. Roughly 13x more power. That's all I'm asking for.

Like they currently do. California has 52 seats. Kansas has 4.

Saying Kansas having proportional power is “no power” is highly disingenuous. When you rephrase your question to something that isn’t clearly loaded with bias:

How would it be fair for Kansas to have power proportional to its population federally?

Well. That sounds like a very silly question, doesn’t it?

They do not, in the House. Kansas has four representatives in the United States House of Representatives. California has 52 seats in the House of representatives. The house of representatives, representing the people, has vastly difference influence between the 4 seats of 3 million Kansa, and the 52 seats of 40 million people California. The state house, the senate, where each state gets 2 representatives has equal power between them

I think part of the problem with this is the common characterization of rural people that we are "farmers".

I live in rural NYS. I know farmers, to be sure (there's a community-supported agriculture farm just about 5 minutes' drive away). But despite the fact that a lot of the land around here is farmland, the vast, vast majority of people here are not farmers. They are teachers, shop owners/workers, factory workers, computer programmers, doctors, lawyers....basically everything you get in most places in the country. The only types of people we don't have are the types you only get in the very biggest cities, like hedge fund managers, and the types that only make sense in certain areas, like sailors.

The question isn't and shouldn't be about "should farmers have as much political weight as not-farmers;" it's "should people who live in a mostly-rural state have as much political weight as people who live in a state with big cities"?

no, but if i did i would argue that food production is more meritorious than investment banking.

There are probably more people involved in providing food for people among the 10000 NYC people then the 100 Kansas farmers.

Do you believe that deciding what to do with money is less important than making food?

...yes?

So deciding whether to invest a couple billion dollars into a farm is not as important as running the farm? Are you sure?

yes