[shapefrog]

> anti-democratic institutions like the Senate

Representitive democracy is anti-democratic, not allowing babies to vote is anti-deomcratic. Based on the role purpose of the Senate, its more democratic that those examples.

Its purpose is 2 votes per state, with representitives elected by the people of those states.

You may not like that that is its role, and that is fine, but you can not say it would be more democratic if some states had more votes in the same way it would not be more democratic for some people to have more votes.

[TulliusCicero]

Democracy is rule by the people, so yes, the current setup is anti-democratic, precisely because it gives greater representation and voting power to some people than others.

Each person's vote for a senator in Wyoming is worth 50x or more what it is in California. That's wrong, and it's anti-democratic. People ought to be on an even playing field.

[kortilla]

> Wyoming is worth 50x or more what it is in California.

No it’s not, they are different elections. The people in Wyoming are voting for who they want to represent their state’s power.

What you’re arguing is that the state should not have power on its own. There would be literally no purpose to the senate if it were proportional to the people.