There's a whole lot of things that went into the Constitution (or failed to get into it, in other cases) at its inception for reasons that made sense at the time. Doesn't mean those reasons still make sense today. And in theory you could amend the Constitution where that makes sense, like in the 1860s to correct one of the most blatant problems of the original version, but in practice in such a hyperpolarized country as it is today, no amendment that'd make a difference is ever going to pass again, so you can't anymore.

Presumably you figure that still today small states need to have sufficient power - and as I mentioned, in the electoral college itself, the disproportionality is modest enough that that might still just about make sense (other than for Puerto Rico or other territories that are just disenfranchised completely), unlike the Senate.

But even if you're happy with the system as it is, your snide comment about 'the Dems care about running up the score' was still pretty bizarre. I've no idea what facts it's even supposed to be based on - for obvious reasons, both parties spend the bulk of their money and campaigning resources in swing states rather than in states that they'll almost certainly win anyway. So how are they 'running up the score' in Massachusetts?