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

[Crepuscular]

52. ...

you must have missed the part where I mentioned that Senators were not intended to be proportional to the population of each state, the system was not designed that way. If both houses were intended to offer proportional representation, what is the point of a bicameral legislature? The Senate was designed to represent the interests of each individual state as a unit of a collection of united states, not to directly represent the population of those states. Again, that is why Senators were originally appointed by State legislatures, not by popular vote. If Federal legislation was simply based on representatives based purely on population, a handful of states (those with the largest populations) could dictate all Federal policy.

For example, water is becoming a valuable commodity. I live in Michigan, which is one of a handful of states which control the largest fresh water concentration in the Country. If Federal policy was solely based on representation based on population, a coalition of Western States, which cumulatively have greater population than the Great Lakes states, could conceivably pass legislation forcing Michigan, Wisconsin, et al. to drain the Great Lakes and send that water West. With equal representation in the Senate, that Western Coalition would probably have a hard time forcing their will on Midwestern states of the same number, albeit with substantially lower population. A somewhat hyperbolic example but it gets my point across.