You didn't, but quoting population ratios and apparently wanting the number of Senators to be so apportioned, I merely pointed out that the House balances the equation in Congress IMO.
Well we already changed the way in which Senators are elected, from going through the state legislature to being popularly elected. The original intention of Senators was to act as "ambassadors" of the state government to the national government. That framework was largely tossed aside.
Nowadays Senators are to directly represent the people, and it's very...VERY screwy that the people of Wyoming are represented 64 times more per person than the people of California.
I would say a change is completely warranted. Maybe not directly proportional to population, but thresholds of 1 Senator up to a certain population, 2 in the next tier, 3 in the next, maybe a 4th tier for the top few states. Something of that nature.
Given the state of California compared to that of Wyoming, Nyvin...one could make the case that we would be better off as a nation if Wyoming were even MORE represented than they are and California was represented LESS then they are!
(dancing man alert!...sarcasm implied!!!)