If anything, the disparity was even greater at the time of the founding: you can find the 1790 Census here. As my Stubborn Facts co-blogger Pat noted a couple of weeks ago, talking about the similarly undemocratic Electoral College, in 1791, “Virginia, the most populous state, had 18.7% of the total population of the original 13 colonies, while Delaware only had 1.7%” Both recieved two United States Senators.

But either way, why would it seem bizarre? The United States was founded as, remains today, and, what is more, should remain, a Federal Republic, not a pure, direct democracy. The Framers were absolutely explicit on this point; see Federalist 39:

[e]ach State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution … [The Senate] will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress“

(emphasis in original). Cf. Federalist 62:

[T]he equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Even opponents – fearful of excessive Federal encroachment on the states – recognized its function. As “Brutus” noted in Antifederalist 62:

The apportionment of members of the Senate among the States is not according to [population], or the importance of the States, but is equal. This, on the plan of a consolidated government, is unequal and improper; but is proper on the system of confederation – on this principle I approve of it. It is indeed the only feature of any importance in the constitution of a confederated government. It was obtained after a vigorous struggle of that part of the Convention who were in favor of preserving the state governments.

Criticizing the Senate for being undemocratic is like criticizing a horse for being a horse.

At the risk of appearing to defend such an “undemocratic” tool as the “anonymous hold,” a little additional understanding of Senate rules and procedure makes the hold a much more palatable – indeed democratic – tool. (It’s the anonymous part that is problematic.)

A great background and explanation is on the Federation of American scientists website :

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/sres216.html

Here’s the short (and good enough for blogland) answer:

In the Senate, legislation can pass by unanimous consent, in theory indicating that no Senator objects to it. As a practical matter however, a seconded motion on the floor of the Senate to pass a bill by unanimous consent passes if the presiding officer hears no objection to the motion. So as little as 3 senators a passed bill does make. (This is one reason why each party strives to keep a member on the floor at all times…) To insure such chicanery doesn’t result in the passage of a bill a Senator opposes, a Senator can put a hold on the bill preemptively.

Like my fellow Republicans who – misguidedly, in my view – would seek to invole the nuclear option in the name of the majority, you invoke democracy to criticize a supermajority rule of the Senate. Perhaps you could explain what democracy has to do with a legislative body where two Senators cumulatively representing 1.13 million people (Wyoming and Vermont) exercise more power than does one Senator representing 36.13 million people (California)?

The Senate was not built for democracy. The Senate was built to provide a check on the House of Representatives, and prior to the Seventeenth Amendment a check on federal enlargement. If you want a purely majoritarian Congress, I’m not sure why you need a Senate in the first place – the only way to make the Senate compatable with majoritarianism or democracy is to abolish it entirely. Personally, I think it serves a valuable function as it is, and would serve an even more valuable one if we would return it to its original place in the Constitutional design.