I don't see any logic behind giving every state equal representation when each state is not equal in population, commerce, or even territory.

I think the need for both a senate and a house is important, and the distinction between the two would be that individual districts select the house appointments while the state as a whole decides the senators.

I think the additional chamber of the senate helps quality control over changes by the house, and makes it harder for harmful changes like those by the GOP to pass while incentivizing changes popular by the larger majority.

The senate was conceived at a time when the most populated states were filled with slaves and disenfranchised poors who couldn't vote. There's no reason to discard a longer-termed gerrymanderjng-immune chamber of Congress just because we want the 70 million Americans in California and Texas to not be subjects of the 1 million in Vermont and Wyoming.

Stacking the senate to reflect population is fine. Especially if we change the house to only care about voters

1. We don't need to set the number at 30,000. But, hypothetically, if we did, then we can count 150 Million votes in a couple of days, so I think we can reasonably count 10,000 in a couple of hours, although we're going to have to rework who gets time to speak before congress and for how long and also do something about the Filibuster.

2. If the current system shows us anything it is that the corruptness of an individual does not correlate to a short time in office. Term limits are important to prevent corrupt people from amassing power and influence over a long period of time, such as in the SCOTUS. Monied interests have been shown more likely to put weight behind reelecting people known to play ball than newcomers.

3. Conversely it means larger population states get less representation. Fuck the smaller states. The few should not rule over the many.