The Senate is suppose to be like that by design.
That doesn't make it right.
Right is a subjective consideration. If your priority is ensuring the most representation for the popular will possible then fine. If you desire to check that based of a realization that the popular will can be flawed at times, then it is in fact the best approach.
The flaw is your assumption that the undemocratic representation of the US Senate is somehow better than a good representation. Total nonsense.
The Senate is suppose to provide an outlet for the representation of a State's viewpoints and to serve as a needed check on the potential excesses of the popular democratic majority. That is not a flawed view, it is a view that recognizes that populist impulses can be both wrong and dangerous to a democratic system when it is not checked with a competing interesting. I for one agree with Lincoln that both Douglas and Cass were wrong on Popular Sovereignty, perhaps you do not. But it is the same idea, that you cannot simply trust a democracy to the popular will alone and expect it to not degrade and move towards a tyranny, if not for all then for some certainly.
"Good representation" is a completely subjective determination. I think one state, one vote is a good representation of state's viewpoints in the Senate, just as much as I think one man, one vote is a good representation of the popular will in the House of Represenatives. Which is the purpose that each body serves. To the extent that the latter is not the case, makes the argument for the Wyoming rule or some other such reform to fix that problem.
Perhaps the problem here is that my concern is not primarily fixated on the free flow of gravy and pork from the Federal Government, whereas that is not the case for some in this thread.
