If you're in a district that is heavily gerrymandered, your vote may actually be more important.

Still, the best proportional representation for you is local. So mayor, state rep, governor.

How do you propose the mayor legislate BigTech? Even on the state level, gerrymandering effects representation. Most of the population in GA (where I live), Florida, and Texas don’t support the state laws. Those three states are passing all kinds of laws to make it harder for people to vote. Especially after the “stolen election” that saw GA turn blue.

And before the whataboutism replies start, I’m sure the same happens on the other side. I just know more about my own state.

The allocation of Senators isn’t supposed to be proportionate to state population by design. It’s a non-issue.

Proportional representation occurs in the House.

Just because it was done by design doesn't mean it's a non-issue. The Senate is an extremely undemocratic organization. The population discrepancy between States is much higher now than when the country was founded.

Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.

People confuse the arguments made out of political expediency for political gospel.

Even though many points made about the constitution were rooted in political theory, and make good sense even today, that doesn’t change the fact that the people involved were politicians who were looking to make the best deal possible within the context of a rapidly failing state under the articles of confederation.

See also - slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person…

The irony is that always gets brought up as though it was actually meant to represent the value of the slave’s humanity.

The large slaveholding states actually wanted 5/5ths whereas states will small slave populations wanted 0/5ths. Slaves couldn’t vote, their interests were ancillary to the whole discussion. The compromise was about pure political power for those that dominated them.

The repeal of the 3/5ths clause along with the subsequent legal restrictions and terrorism against the black population of the south that followed, gave the south more power, and subsequently made it harder to dislodge Jim Crow.

But your point is still very valid. Somehow people are comfortable compartmentalizing the notion that the constitution is/was perfect, except for that one part that somehow doesn’t count and was “inevitably doomed” anyways.

Fun fact, the 14th amendment would have never passed if the South had not seceded.

> The population discrepancy between States is much higher now than when the country was founded.

This is exactly why the Senate was designed this way.

> Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.

Federalism still exists even if you don’t see it.

Simply because something was designed a certain way 250 years ago, doesn’t mean it’s a non issue.

The political problem they were trying to solve at the time (balancing the interests of independent sovereign political entities with respect to land claims and future political power) doesn’t necessarily map onto the problems we have today.

Proportional representation also doesn’t occur in the house because of gerrymandering.

https://www.fairvote.org/votes_vs_seats_in_the_people_s_hous...

Sounds like the problem here is gerrymandering not the Senate.