He is wrong about the Senate. The two Houses of Congress were necessary as the "Great Compromise" between small and large states.
He said something in there that I have banged on about with regard to the EC and the Senate and how unfair it is.
I'll ask you this: At it's must fundamental, is it okay for one per son in Wyoming to have the same amount of say as 68 people in California. That to me, is fundamentally unfair. Let's take it to the nth degree - let's say it was 1 million vs 68 million?
You know in Rwanda, the biggest issue was that the Belgians created a ruling class called the Tutsi. They made up 15% of Rwanda's population. I did a study of the country about four years before the genocide. I said to my teacher at the time, 'I'm surprised the Hutu's haven't overthrown them". We then had a discussion - the exact content of which I can't remember verbatim - but it was something along the lines (this was my teacher saying this) that sometimes it doesn't take a lot of people to control a larger group of people. Or course, four years later and 100s of 1000s of dead Tutsi's later.
If you want to live in 'the greatest, freest' and dear I say 'fairest' country in the world, then I'm sorry, somebody in Wyoming having more representation at a Federal level will not work. Resentment will grow.
I'll also say this: Surely any really pressing matters for the smaller states can be sorted at a state level. Also, if a smaller state does have an issue, who's to say the larger states won't agree with them if they put up a good argument?
If you marginalise people, and they think a systems is unfair, there will be repercussions. The video touched on them.