I actually agree with rigging the system a little bit to ensure that the interests of states with low populations are not utterly ignored at the federal level in Congress. That's why I don't object to having a Senate with equal representation for all states, even though there's a bit of a democratic deficit there. One of the goals of liberal democracy, after all, is to prevent a tyranny of a majority. (I do, however, think that the Senate needs some reform in the particulars of how it functions.)
But the idea that the state governments
should get to determine who's in the U.S. Congress? No. Absolutely not. States are important, but state governments are not people, and should have themselves get to determine who's in the Senate. The people
of the states should get to determine that, not the state governments. Arguing otherwise is just an attempt to take away people's rights.
And while there is a legitimate argument to be made that the people of low-population states should have equal representation with those of large-population states in the Senate, there is no valid reason for the vote for president of a citizen in Delaware to carry more weight than the vote of a citizen in California. The President is not like a Senator from a low-population state; the job of the President is to be President for everyone
, and no citizen's vote for President should carry more weight than others.