You’re correct. It’s a Republic with a sane voting system that keeps the mobs from the population centers from ruling the country. You say weakness I say strength.
Or, if we kept the same 2 senators/state maybe we split high population states into smaller states so that we don't have huge gap between number or residents/senator?
Personally, I think we should probably move in the unicameral direction. I don't think that "fast-changing" adaptability is a negative in this modern world.
Even when going extremely “my way”, as an engineer I’d hate it.
I find a lot of people spend time thinking “how much more progress could we make if we didn’t have to compromise with those assholes?”
Far fewer think “how much more damage could those assholes do if they didn’t have to compromise with us?”
If you're not going with majority rules, then what's the basis for picking this particular minority to vindictively assert their will over their ideological rivals?
Spare me the talk of 'tyranny of the minority' in the senate. It's really telling as to the maturity level of those involved when the basis for calling out 'tyranny' is that those in the legislature simply say "no" to your whims, especially when those seeking change are more than capable of implementing those changes more locally but choose not to.
Which allowed slavery, counted those slaves as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of apportionment in Congress while not allowing those slaves to vote. The electoral college was part of the compromise with the slave states. Also didn't allow women to vote.