I accidentally posted prior to finishing this post:
1. Is the current system fair/just/logical/good/etc.?
Is there anyone here that would choose the current system if they were drawing it from scratch? Would you create one house of Congress with that is equally represented by 39M people on the coast and 800k people in a square in the middle of the country? Would you set up a system where the majority of the Supreme Court Justices have been selected by the party who has only won the plurality of votes in one Presidential election in the last 30 years? Devoid of any history, background, obstacles to change, etc., is this the system you would choose? Because, to me, it is objectively stupid.
And it's an important question that should not be overlooked. Does this system work as intended? We can't fix something if we don't recognize the problem. And if you think it's a good system, there is no impetus to reduce the small state advantage by expanding the House.
2. Should we change it?
2a, This is where practicalities are important. There are barriers of change which are very high to changing any of this. The practical costs of making a change may be worse than continuing the system. I have acknowledged this several times. I am not saying that changing the Constitution is high on priority list right now. But that doesn't really affect my answer on point #1.
2b, But, one of the things that drives me nuts is this sense of deference we give to the old way because it is old. It is entirely unAmerican. We hold more reverence for the founding fathers than they held for each other. Pretty much the only mindset they had in common was a willingness to change something that no longer worked for them. Being a British colony wasn't working for them, so they changed it. Just about every argument that has been made against me on this thread, could easily be made against American independence. What, violating contracts? Yeah, we did that. Being willing to dissolve a country? Yep. Now, it took a Revolutionary War and the risk of being tried for treason, so there were certainly practical obstacles to change that were considered. It wasn't easy, and I'm not looking for a Revolutionary War 2.0, but let's stop pretending that a reverence for tradition is a goal.
And after the founding fathers won, they formed a nation under The Articles of Confederation. That shit didn't work, so they scrapped it. They then formed a more perfect union (not a "perfect union", a "more perfect union) under the Constitution. If I recall Jefferson thought it would be eventually scrapped, and that we would go through constitutions every generation or so. They included the Second Amendment with the idea that people should overthrow the government under this Constitution if need be. They put in an amendment process so it could be changed in a less violent manner. At no time did they say "this was handed down from the heavens to be followed forever." They were just making shit up, failed the first time, and then created a pretty fucking awesome document their second time...for its time. A failure to reevaluate the structure will ensure that we continue to become less democratic as time goes on.
"Drive your plow over the bones of the dead." - William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell
"...leaping over it as silly sheep leap over a vacuum, because their leader originally leaped there when a stick was held. There's your law of precedents; there's your utility of traditions; there's the story of your obstinate survival of old beliefs never bottomed on the earth, and now not even hovering in the air! There's orthodoxy!" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick