The US system isnt perfect, but arguments against the current allocation of Senators is effectively arguing that the Senate should be abolished (which would take a constitutional amendment). I think small states suddenly finding themselves largely powerless would consider secession if that were the case.

> I think small states suddenly finding themselves largely powerless would consider secession if that were the case.

I have little doubt they would, and in doing so start a war. After all, it's happened before, and many people are plainly agitating for it now.

It's the "my enhanced privilege or your destruction, choose one" argument, which is a clear demonstration of one way the system codifies structural inequality and is transparently anti democratic. In a similar way, corporate lobbying distorts democratic representation, and by all appearances, they overlap quite a bit, differentiated only by the industry sector and which Senator they support.

> The Senate was designed that way when the distribution [...] was far more uniform across the states

Doesn't this goes against your argument then?

At a time where most of the voting population was at its peak uniformity, the 2-senator-per-state model was invented to ensure that the bigger states could not bully their way in federal legislation.

It was invented at the time where it was the least needed, since as you said, voting population was very uniform, so they mostly want the same things.

> Doesn't this goes against your argument then?

No. It was also anti-democratic at that time, but because the distribution of the vote was an order of magnitude less divergent, and the only people who could vote were landowning white men, it was able to succeed politically as a compromise.

Since then, its anti-democratic effects have magnified as the population divergence between states has magnified.