This story is unavailable.

I think perhaps you and I live in different realities.

You think the slave states produced the bulk of the country’s goods. But when trade was reduced it was the confederacy that developed shortages of many imported goods, while the union went right on producing. The South had always been relatively impoverished, with a few exports and many imports. They lacked a financial structure to meet their needs and money tended to go north and stay there. Until the Confederacy printed paper money without collecting taxes, so the money kept inflating. (That approach worked surprisingly well while they still had commodities to buy and sell.)

You seem to be implying that states with low population are more “productive” than states with higher population.

Our states with smallest population and thus the biggest proportional influence on the EC are:

Wyoming
Vermont
Washington, DC
 Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Montana
Rhode Island
Maine
New Hampshire

Somehow when I look at this list I don’t see the wellspring of US productivity. Maybe you do

But this is not the only way the EC distorts our voting. Just imagine that in 2020, half of California voters stay home, and of the other 50% it’s 20% Democrat, 19% Republian, and 11% Libertarian. Meanwhile (to make the numbers dramatic) in Texas every voter votes, and they all vote Republican. Then those 20% of California Democrats get all of California’s EC votes. Each of them counts as much as 5 Texas voters. Is that fair?

The better choice is one voter : one vote. That’s fair to everybody.