Ahhh... After reading a bit of
the article, I guess I don't think the situation is as bad as the author is portraying it.
Yes, Senate representation isn't proportional to population; no shocker there. However, I think there's a lot of wobble in how he derived that ~50 million figure. His description:
Once Warnock and Ossoff take their seats, the Democratic half of the Senate will represent 41,549,808 more people than the Republican half.
I derived this number by using 2019 population estimates from the United States Census Bureau. In each state where both senators belong to the same party, I allocated the state’s entire population to that party. In states with split delegations, I allocated half of the state’s population to each party. I coded Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME) as Democrats. Although both men identify as independents, they caucus with the Democratic Party.
I mean, he could be over/underestimating some of the (D) / (R) populations of these states by almost 50%. He counts the entire population of MA (for example) as (D) if we elect two Democrat Senators - even though the state voters could be split 51% / 49% D-to-R. Since not all states elected both Senators of the same party, this "wobble" wont infect his numbers by 50%, but he could still reasonably be off by 10-20 million people.
If His number drops from ~50 million to 30 million being under represented - that's only ~10% of the country's population. Not that big of a deal.
---
Granted
@Temujin , this is my 10 minutes of analysis; I could be wrong in a bunch of ways. However, HE could be off by enough that this malappropriation is no big deal...
edit - typos, emphasis