Maybe they got it wrong in the 1700"s???? -

[Crepuscular]

40. ...

As originally structured, the Senate was never intended to represent individual citizens, hence the lack of proportional representation. The House was intended to represent individual citizens of each state, so the number of Representatives was designed to be proportional to population. The Senate was intended to represent the interests of each state collectively, which is why Senators were appointed by State legislators, instead of by popular vote. By apportioning equal representation in the Senate to each State, the interests of the citizens of less populous states are protected from simply being dictated by the more populous states. The Senate was intended to some degree to act as a "brake", to prevent Federal legislation that applies to the whole country, from being dictated by a population majority which may be clustered regionally.

Several other thoughts, if both houses were apportioned simply by the population of the states, what then is the purpose of having a bicameral legislature? Also, for those who feel that population should be the sole factor considered when apportioning representation, do you feel that the same standard should be applied to the United Nations? China and India should have substantially more votes in the U.N. than the U.S. because they are more populous?