>Or the same for Wyoming. Why not Wyoming just declare that it is now 4 states and quadruple its representation?

So there's nothing stopping anyone from trying this, but admission into the Union requires the other States in the Union + POTUS to agree with you. And, I'd imagine if a coalition of states finds California splitting into 5 parts to be disadvantageous to the balance of power within the Union, they'd block it immediately.

We can see historical examples of this: the slow-rolling crisis of the mid 19th century of the expansion of states in the western territories. We can see modern examples of this: D.C and Puerto Rico not being granted statehood.

>There’s nothing that requires a senator to be this image of a dignified senior statesperson that represents the interests of the state in the way that the founders imagined.

I agree with you on this, and also, historically this was proven to be the case and why the 17th was ratified. And, I guess in a lot of ways, a popular election of the senator by the state's populace is just "state government appoints the senator" without the extra steps in-between.

But if we take this "popular election is just the old system without the extra steps" part, then:

>With all this context in mind I can’t really see what the Senate’s purpose is besides disenfranchising voters in larger states.

Couldn't it be said that it franchises [sic?] the popular vote of smaller states to protect them against larger states passing laws that directly benefit them?

>Congress isn’t really there to make sure that smaller states are satisfied, it’s there to pass federal laws in areas where the federal government has authority over states.

Yes, but how do we ensure that larger states don't start passing laws that directly take advantage of the smaller ones?

>So why are the needs of arbitrary state boundaries more important than those of the people?

>I would argue that the founders might have been wrong to decide that we need a check on the desires of voters. They were clearly wrong on the electoral college, which should just go away entirely or at least change to a more granular system like the states that split their electoral votes.

So this, I think, is purely a matter of political philosophy. The founders were seriously afraid of mob rule. They also saw statehood and state-identity as some sort of pseudo-ethnic identity. Are the state boundaries maybe a bit arbitrary? Perhaps in the very squarish mid-western states but the original 13 saw their state boundaries as being steeped in history and tradition. I think there is something else to be said about these identities becoming fluid at the borders of the states, central power in concentrated economic/population zones radiating outwards and coinciding with the strength of state-ethnic identity, etc. etc. More Holy Roman Empire than United Kingdom.

So I think perhaps this increasing call for national popular votes of the president, abolishment of the Senate, questioning statehood in general points to an increasing shift away from the idea that we're citizens of the USA as a function of being a "Virginian" or a "New Yorker" or a "Californian" (a slow, long rolling processes started in 1861) Mixed with increasing frustrations about larger states and metro areas feeling they're not properly represented.

And, forgive me, but I don't know if this sentiment is entirely correct. So I reserve my skepticism for switching to unicameral systems, to nationally elected POTUSes, to turning States into Provinces. Until I am convinced otherwise.

Edit: And I'm a Californian.