http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/representation/apsa_99_v2.pdf This is complex, so I'll break it down, basically states today (forced by Judicial Activism) cannot apportion senate seats on geography but must apportion senate seats on population. This makes no sense, because the idea of a senate was to counter-balance the largest voting "blocs" which were formed not by equal apportionment but by their geography, for instance in this paper, California's Los Angeles county. A modern example that is perfect is Nevada. The entire state by square miles is Red, with a few square miles blue. But that blue spot is Las Vegas and it dominates the politics of the state of Nevada, and recently Nevada's legislature now pushed into the Democratic legislature is going down the same path as California already went down. By forcing reapportionment through population, the senate no longer checked and balanced the house and a perfect example, the state of California, ruined by urban centers full of poverty, ignorance, and leftist propaganda. Had California kept the malapportionment via geography, a senate that checked and balanced the house, California would doubtfully be in the crapper it is in today. This harkens back to the very reasons the Founding Fathers had a Senate to check the House to begin with.