We read at econdevresults.com that "California’s population is greater than the combined total population of the 22 smallest states." This thus signifies that California's two national Senators literally have to competently represent in aggregate more people than those forty-four Senators have to represent in those other smaller States combined; thereby signifying that a bigger State such as California must bow to those smaller States, for it is essentially powerless to do none else. Further, we read that the Constitution grants specific State-creation powers to Congress in Article IV, Section 3, of said Constitution, of which, basically if a given State wants to create additional States within its current borders and such is passed by its respective State legislature, and subsequently this meets with the consent of Congress, then such a new State will become into existence. Further to the point, the hurdle to overcome such is not particularly daunting as in the midst of a bloody Civil War, the western part of Virginia, which was loyal to the Union, was admitted into the Union of those States, in 1863.
While it certainly makes sense that each State should have two Senators as granted within that Constitution, of which, thereby the population of said State is not relevant to thus having those two Senators; it does not on the other hand, make a lot of sense that States such as California, Texas, Florida, and New York, have not voluntarily to date made the necessary effort to create additional States within their current State boundaries, as quite obviously certain peoples within those States as currently constructed, effectively have no Senatorial representation because those States through its current Senatorial structure, cater almost exclusively to the prevailing opinions and desires of those that are the power within those States, and need not thereby address in any sort of comprehensive manner, those that are not part of that power.
While perhaps the prevailing reason why these big States have not made a concerted effort to break themselves into smaller States lies at the feet of those that control the levers of those States, and thereby do not wish to share such with others within that State; this is somewhat contradicted by the fact that more Senators within a given area of what use to be one State, is going to be in aggregate, almost surely beneficial for all those that live within the boundaries of what use to be that one State, because the more voices contained within a given former State area, the more power will aggregate to those voices, so now represented.
So too, it perhaps is unfortunate, that America is a Union of exactly fifty States, which is a nice, round number and has been such for over sixty years; yet, for a country that professes to be of, for, and by the people, when nearly forty million people find that in the legislative hall of its national Senate, that their voice is counted no more than a State which exceeds barely half a million, it would seem to indicate that fair representation of, for, and by the people is clearly out of skew. Sure, there is a Congress which in its allocation of how many representatives so provided to a State, is population based; but there also has to be something concretely done to address the insanely large population differences such as the big States consist of over the smaller States, in which within the halls of the Senate, each of their voices are seen as somehow being equal, though the people so represented behind those votes, represent a vast and wide chasm between such. That doesn't seem right, because clearly it isn't.