> the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place.
Your reply belies a lack of bothering to read before making a hostile rant.
I literally just said the situation involves "a join-up bribe from 237 years ago", and I don't see how any minor-amendment-citer such as yourself could have missed the meaning, namely: Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy, via the Senate, as an inducement to get their state-legislatures to ratify the federal constitution.
That decision involved sacrificing democratic principles and ethics in favor of reaching a deal. The same tradeoff occurred with the infamous "3/5ths compromise." One of those two thankfully became moot, and it's high time we got around to fixing the other.
_________
> a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state
You have provided absolutely nothing to justify giving some states disproportionate influence on federal policy which affects all states.
At best, you've provided an argument for reverting the 17th Amendment and changing how senators are chosen. That is orthogonal to how many senators a State has.
_________
> > Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense.
> that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle.
LOL, this is one of those times when the indignant response is an indirect admission. Yes, it is nonsense, and yes, you disproportionately see it from Republicans.
Kind of like when a context-free "Nazis=Bad" sign leads someone to complain that the sign is hostile to their party.
_________
> pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A
A pedantic non-sequitur:
1. How senators are chosen is orthogonal to how many exist.
2. Only tangentially related to "gerrymandering" if you mean that the state legislators' boundaries were gerrymandered. If anything, 17A change made gerrymandering less relevant.