Should the senate be changed?

[David Hume]

As more and more people flock to cities, by 2050, about 15 states are expected to have 70% of the population. Especially as the rural-urban divide continues to grow , this could spell out trouble, like one party (the Republican party) has a lock on the senate just by winning 40% of the vote or something like that. I get the point of the senate was the represent the states, not the people, but since California is a state with more people, shouldn't it get more senators, the same way it needs more resources and has a bigger economy than any other state? I kind of think that a cool solution would be if senator's actual votes were weighted based on the population they represent, but that would bring new problems, like the fact that population is always changing and Republicans still exist even in CA and NY. We're already begginning to see this problem today; the senators who voted for Kavanaugh represent a minority of the country, and despite Dems winning the PV in 2016, and 2018 being a D landslide, it'll take another semi-landslide to flip the senate in 2020. Increased partisanship could make it more or less impossible for the party that aligns with urban voters to ever get a senate majoirty, even if they represent a majoity of the country. Does omething need to be done, and if so, what?

Bolded - The House of Representatives already accounts for the population differences in each state, as California has more representatives in the House than any other state. It would be a redundancy to have the Senate follow the same design, with more senators allocated to the populous states.

Just leave it as it is. Each state has different people, different lifestyles, different customs,  and different beliefs. Some states are more religious, some are more diverse, some have more resources, etc. The senate ensures that the differences in each state will always get some  attention, regardless of population (or lack thereof). And correspondingly, the House ensures that those smaller states don’t get too much attention.

When you factor that the Senate doesn’t exist on its own, that it exists alongside the House, then you should see that the system is fine as it is.

But why should voters from smaller states get extra protection in the senate and EC, when voters from large states and Urban Cities don't get any extra "protection" I would argue the house doesn't favor cities since usually cities vote 95% D, but rual areas are mostly 70-30 R minus rural districts that have a large minority population. In 2018, even though Dems won the house, it took them a landslide to win, whereas in 2016, Reblicans held more seats but barely won the PV. Literally, in every way, if you're a voter in an urban city, your vote is less powerful than a rural voter. That just seems wrong to me. Look at how the Rs can easily get a trifecta in an R+0 year, but Ds have to win in a landslide. Right now, there's only 2 Rs in objectivley blue states: CO and ME, but Dems have senate seats in WV, MT, AL and OH, alongside most of the seats in tossup states and still don't have a majority in the senate.

You have to remember that when the colonies declared independence, each of them was a independent sovereign. In the Articles of Confederation, each state has exactly the same voting right, regardless of population. Without the extra protection of the small states that you want to get rid of, why would they join the union, just to be dominated by the more populous states?

Based on your logic, the United Nation should be abolished. Countries like China and India should have the same voting powers as Europe plus North and South America combined due to their huge population.