[triceratops]

> But both parties are against it.

The Senate is split 50-50. It's fair to say one half of that is more strongly opposed to it than the other since their states even rejected the Medicaid expansion accompanying Obamacare.

So it sounds like the Senate is doing a poor job of representing the people. Which leads to the obvious question: why have a Senate at all?

[akvadrako]

The Senate represents the states, not the people.

[triceratops]

Doesn't answer my question. Why is it important to represent a "state"?

Hypothetically if you had only two states, one with 20 people and the other with 20 million (entirely feasible with the Constitution), would it be useful to given them both 2 Senators each? Would the federal government's laws and actions faithfully represent how the people in the nation actually feel?

This isn't a hypothetical concern. See the laws on marijuana for why "representation for states" isn't ideal. For further evidence, see action on climate change.

[akvadrako]

Because that was the condition on which the states joined the union and it's what many states, and the people in them, still want. They want local control, not to be forced to follow what the majority in bigger states decide. That's because local control gives each person more power over their own life.

[triceratops]

> Because that was the condition on which the states joined the union

That's true for maybe the first 13 colonies. The subsequent states were largely formed by settlers from the first 13 and they just wanted their land to be a state in their country. For them, the constitution was kind of a take-it-or-leave-it deal.