The shortest term I can come up with for this result is "sovereign states are entitled to their own opinions and interests."

The error in your judgement is the assumption that US States are arbitrary lines drawn on a map, and that the apparent disconnect between the ideological makeup of the Senate is just as arbitrary as the makeup of gerrymandered congressional districts within a state. This is not correct.

The United States is supposed to be a union of states who have joined together to pursue certain, defined common interests that are not inclusive of absolutely everything (like, foreign relations and national defense and interstate commerce). Although the House of Representatives represents the people living in the United States, the Senate's purpose is to represent the interests of the states. That's why it is organized differently than the House, and that's why it has almost all of the anti-majoritarian features of Congress, because it's explicitly not majoritarian the way that the House is.

To treat Connecticut and Texas as places we can or should redraw in order to represent whatever the "average" American is in the Senate is just as wrong as suggesting that France and Poland should redraw themselves arbitrarily so that the European Council or the United Nations become more representative of the views of European and/or World citizens. It misses the point that France and Poland are real places whose borders exist for real reasons with their own interests that are entitled to representation independently of whatever geopolitical aggregate their people might also be a part of.

EDIT: Several people have claimed that this isn't an answer to the question, largely by saying that states actually are arbitrary lines on a map.

Those people are missing the point, which is that a state is not the same kind of entity as a congressional district, because a state has a government, and that government is in one way or another (depending on which country or international organization you choose as an example) has its own form of legitimate sovereignty that isn't supposed to be violated. In the United States, that sovereignty is shared in very specific ways with the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution.

The shortest term I can come up with for this result is "sovereign states are entitled to their own opinions and interests."

The error in your judgement is the assumption that US States are arbitrary lines drawn on a map, and that the apparent disconnect between the ideological makeup of the Senate is just as arbitrary as the makeup of gerrymandered congressional districts within a state. This is not correct.

The United States is supposed to be a union of states who have joined together to pursue certain, defined common interests that are not inclusive of absolutely everything (like, foreign relations and national defense and interstate commerce). Although the House of Representatives represents the people living in the United States, the Senate's purpose is to represent the interests of the states. That's why it is organized differently than the House, and that's why it has almost all of the anti-majoritarian features of Congress, because it's explicitly not majoritarian the way that the House is.

To treat Connecticut and Texas as places we can or should redraw in order to represent whatever the "average" American is in the Senate is just as wrong as suggesting that France and Poland should redraw themselves arbitrarily so that the European Council or the United Nations become more representative of the views of European and/or World citizens. It misses the point that France and Poland are real places whose borders exist for real reasons with their own interests that are entitled to representation independently of whatever geopolitical aggregate their people might also be a part of.

EDIT: Several people have claimed that this isn't an answer to the question, largely by saying that states actually are arbitrary lines on a map.

Those people are missing the point, which is that a state is not the same kind of entity as a congressional district, because a state has a government, and that government is in one way or another (depending on which country or international organization you choose as an example) has its own form of legitimate sovereignty that isn't supposed to be violated. In the United States, that sovereignty is shared in very specific ways with the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution. The purpose of the Senate is to represent the interests of those governments, not people who happen to live in them.

The shortest term I can come up with for this result is "sovereign states are entitled to their own opinions and interests."

The error in your judgement is the assumption that US States are arbitrary lines drawn on a map, and that the apparent disconnect between the ideological makeup of the Senate is just as arbitrary as the makeup of gerrymandered congressional districts within a state. This is not correct.

The United States is supposed to be a union of states who have joined together to pursue certain, defined common interests that are not inclusive of absolutely everything (like, foreign relations and national defense and interstate commerce). Although the House of Representatives represents the people living in the United States, the Senate's purpose is to represent the interests of the states. That's why it is organized differently than the House, and that's why it has almost all of the anti-majoritarian features of Congress, because it's explicitly not majoritarian the way that the House is.

To treat Connecticut and Texas as places we can or should redraw in order to represent whatever the "average" American is in the Senate is just as wrong as suggesting that France and Poland should redraw themselves arbitrarily so that the European Council or the United Nations become more representative of the views of European and/or World citizens. It misses the point that France and Poland are real places whose borders exist for real reasons with their own interests that are entitled to representation independently of whatever geopolitical aggregate their people might also be a part of.

The shortest term I can come up with for this result is "sovereign states are entitled to their own opinions and interests."

The error in your judgement is the assumption that US States are arbitrary lines drawn on a map, and that the apparent disconnect between the ideological makeup of the Senate is just as arbitrary as the makeup of gerrymandered congressional districts within a state. This is not correct.

The United States is supposed to be a union of states who have joined together to pursue certain, defined common interests that are not inclusive of absolutely everything (like, foreign relations and national defense and interstate commerce). Although the House of Representatives represents the people living in the United States, the Senate's purpose is to represent the interests of the states. That's why it is organized differently than the House, and that's why it has almost all of the anti-majoritarian features of Congress, because it's explicitly not majoritarian the way that the House is.

To treat Connecticut and Texas as places we can or should redraw in order to represent whatever the "average" American is in the Senate is just as wrong as suggesting that France and Poland should redraw themselves arbitrarily so that the European Council or the United Nations become more representative of the views of European and/or World citizens. It misses the point that France and Poland are real places whose borders exist for real reasons with their own interests that are entitled to representation independently of whatever geopolitical aggregate their people might also be a part of.

EDIT: Several people have claimed that this isn't an answer to the question, largely by saying that states actually are arbitrary lines on a map.

Those people are missing the point, which is that a state is not the same kind of entity as a congressional district, because a state has a government, and that government is in one way or another (depending on which country or international organization you choose as an example) has its own form of legitimate sovereignty that isn't supposed to be violated. In the United States, that sovereignty is shared in very specific ways with the federal government, as outlined in the Constitution.