An Undemocratic Senate

I was talking to the Caretaker last night, and we both expressed frustration at the seemingly undemocratic nature of the US Senate.  Two Senators from, say, South Dakota, with its 800,000 population and California with its 36 million population (a ratio of 1/50), are basically equal in power .  In other words, a South Dakotan has basically 50 times the power and representation in the Senate of a Californian.  Now, that is ridiculous.  It may have made sense at one time, 200 years ago, when states were semi-sovereign, but now?

Add to that the Senate filibuster where you have to have a 60 vote supermajority to pass anything, and it really gets absurd.

Anyway, I was interested to see the following in E. J. Dionne's WaPo column this morning:

Of course what has happened on the health-care bill is enraging. It's quite clear that substantial majorities in both houses of Congress favored either a public option or a Medicare buy-in.

In a normal democracy, such majorities would work their will, a law would pass, and champagne corks would pop. But everyone must get it through their heads that thanks to the bizarre habits of the Senate, we are no longer a normal democracy.

Because of a front of Republican obstruction and the ludicrous idea that all legislation requires a supermajority of 60 votes, power has passed from the majority to tiny minorities, sometimes minorities of one.