[ericmay]

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Senate, whether Wyoming is 80% white or black or any other random race. The point is that it exists as a sovereignty vote. To take it away would be to cause a civil war or at least a dissolution of the United States because smaller states will walk away.

A lot of the anti-American, anti-Senate, &c. stuff is Russian propaganda precisely because to continue to sow division and encourage populism is to invite destruction and disunity upon the United States.

[oa335]

i understand the purpose of the senate and believe that bicameralism is a good idea and populism is generally bad.

you seem to not understand my point so ill give it one more try:

senate was indeed formed as a bulwark against populism, but the founders didnt anticipate a 68 to 1 population difference between the largest and smallest states (california vs. wyoming), nor the vast differences in composition of their populations. when a tiny fraction of the population holds that much disproportionate veto power, the senate no longer checks populism, it actively empowers a specific, rural populist minority to override the majority.

[ericmay]

No I understood your point, but you seem to be ignoring mine. The Senate wasn't just a bulwark against populism, it serves as a way to express the sovereignty of individual states in a way to balance states with very high populations from running roughshod over the rest of the states.

You have two things at play here:

1. Population size 2. State sovereignty

You're ignoring the 2nd, but they are inseparable when it comes to understanding the function and purpose of the Senate.