9 States have 18 Senators and Half the US Population

[FBaggins]

354. The problem with that...

... is that it isn't "unequal" and it certainly isn't "undemocratic".

It's as if you're saying "we're vegetarians, and therefore it doesn't make sense to eat bananas because they have no protein". There isn't actually a connection. You can argue that bananas don't have enough protein, and others are free to disagree that there are more important dietary reasons to eat them... but you can't rationally say that it's because we're vegetarians.

i don't know why you are wedded to an idea that is 200+ years old and one that not even half the original colonies supported.

Because it made sense then and it makes sense today. You don't like it, not because of some valid structural concern, but because you aren't getting what you want from government and you think this would change the outcome.

i'm disagreeing with an idea that wasn't popular when it was thought of originally.

And you're wrong... but that hardly matters. The reason you've been getting overwhelming condemnation on the thread is not because it's a bad idea (though it is), but because you've got this ridiculous notion that there's some foundational universal priority that we all share (democracy) which itself demands the adjustment. That was, and remains, entirely wrong. Lots of entirely democratic countries have systems that are every bit as "unequal and undemocratic" by that standard.

Let's talk about a redesign for the House. So many of them are gerrymandered into automatic seats for one party or another. Those representatives aren't really as answerable to the voters as the competitive seats. Why not construct a system where a certain number of voters (regardless of geography) can elect someone to represent them? You get 250,000 teachers to vote for you (from all around the country) and you're a congressman. You're truly representing a viewpoint and only people who voted for you. There aren't tens of thousands of voters in your district who voted against you but are stuck with you... everyone gets to be represented by someone who actually matches their viewpoint. There would be pro-steel congressmen because steel workers got together and picked somone who truly represented them (and so on for any number of constituencies).

It would obviously be a far more representative democracy than what we have now, wouldn't it?

But let us not start the thread by implying that anyone who loves/understands democracy will naturally gravitate to this position. They won't... and shouldn't.