Scott writes, "Okay, let's assume we were to eliminate the Senate," and then goes on to say that this would transfer much too much power to urban centers. I talk about "small states" in one of the following posts, but I want to specify that I have no desire to "eliminate the Senate." I think we're much too large a country to get along with a one-house legislature. I do believe that a number of small states should emulate Nebraska's example and shift to unicameralism; Jesse Ventura suggested that, altogether sensibly, for Minnesota, but the proposal went nowhere. But I think that Texas is already too large to make unicameralism desirable.
Also, even though I rail against the degree of disproportionate power held by small states in the Senate, I could easily live, as the result of a latter day compromise, with a more modest boost for small states. The "two-senator" bonus for the electoral college helps small states, but, obviously, it has significantly less impact than does the equality of voting power in the Senate itself. Larry Sabato, a political scientist from Virginia who has written a very interesting book, "A More Perfect Constitution," that also suggests constitutional reform and calls for a new convention, argues in favor of giving the largest states four senators, mid-size states three senators, and leaving small states at their current two. (This would also have the virtue, Sabato believes, of increasing the size of the Senate, which would be desirable given the incredible workload and sweep of issues that the Senate must consider.) I would still be unhappy if Wyoming had "only" 35 times the voting power of California instead of its present 70. But if, say, we ended up with the small states having 5-10 times the voting power, as part of a deal to get support for other desirable changes, then I would almost certainly sign on.
No one can believe in the possibility of a "perfect constitution." One is always going to have to compromise.