Elections for senators and governors are, or at least are more valid: no electoral college and no gerrymandering of districts. Of course, vote suppression is still there, and simply lying, but it's an improvement.
Governors, yes. Senators: Wyoming gets 2 (500k people), California gets 2 (40M people). Rural people are hugely represented. Statehood for DC would help a bit with the rural/urban imbalance.
Also, not all states are equally gerrymandered. Vermont and Wyoming each have a single representative, so they have no electoral boundaries to manipulate. And California uses a non-partisan electoral commission to adjust electoral boundaries. In states where redistricting is still a partisan process it is not all equally shameless.
I'm guessing it would be less intrusive to adjust the district boundary process to try and reduce gerrymandering. And perhaps adjusting the voting process to something more reflective of values than first-past-the-post.
I suppose they wouldn’t be if your entire electoral profit and loss statement comes down to one seat in the goddamned House of Representatives and we are all slaves to lines on a map because those lines, those lines are destiny.
But srswtf123, seriously, wtf? You tell me how many offices you were asked to fill in the last ballot you filled out and how many completely asinine laws you were asked to vote yes or no on. Constitutional amendments are two points if you got any of those on your ballot. In my neck of the woods, the locals love sticking complete crap in our constitution to keep it outside the reach of State courts.
MA few states don’t practice gerrymandering; eg Washington and California both use non partisan or bi-partisan redistricting committees (so legislative majorities don’t matter).