Our Constitution represents well the interests of those invited to the Constitutional Convention. Those interests were given power to both govern and veto others. One of those key interest groups were, of course, the states and the Constitution is riddled with a checks small and large states have on each other. These states represented key sub-interests: slave owners vs abolitionists, rural vs city interests, agricultural vs mercantile interests, rich vs non-rich, etc. I add the rich because Madison said the purpose of the Senate was to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. Left out in the cold were the interests of those not invited to form a new government: slaves, women, non-property owners etc.
In the process the Framers devised system that is functionally antidemocratic and for the most part Americans refuse to question the morality of the system. For example, the EC has on 4 or 5 occasions handed the presidency to someone rejected by the People. So much for government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Senate is another body that is by any democratic standard is morally illegitimate. Currently a mere 18% of the US population gets a majority of seats. Yet this body has not only has a veto power over the House, but special powers to ratify treaties and judicial nominations. Clarence Thomas was ratified by senators representing less than 50% of the US population… who then goes on to be a key vote in Bush v Gore and Citizens United. The currents of antidemocratic government are insidious.
I'm not saying that legitimate interests of small states should not be protected. But the moral question I'm raising is why should agricultural interests or those of the rich, be granted the power to govern while other interests of other oppressed groups, women, racial minorities, etc be denied that same power? Of course a government that incorporated all those interest groups in the governing structure would be unwieldy. Morally, should ANY special interest group be granted institutional power to govern, or worst have a veto over other groups? Can not any legitimate rights of rural folks can be dealt with the same way as others rights are protected... through the Bill Of Rights… or to guarantee someone from that interest group (or others) will be granted chairpersonships of relevant congressional committees to shape legislation most important to them.
If we believe in democracy, then we should oppose all anti-democratic "solutions" to protecting rights. There's NO morally legitimate reason for rural states to wield inordinate power to shape legislation, treaties, judicial nominees etc OUTSIDE their area of special concern. It's time to reform the Constitution and FINALLY made it democratic and that means stripping ALL vestiges of state suffrage from the Constitution... and moving to a true multi-party democracy.