Suppose Senators were apportioned like the House

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1 Senator:
AL,AK,AR,CO,CT,DE,HI,ID,IA,KS,
KY,LA,ME,MS,MT,NE,NV,NH,NM,ND,
OK,OR,RI,SC,SD, UT, VT, WV, WY

2 Senators:
AZ, IN,MD,MA,MN,MO,TN,VA,WA,WI

3 Senators:
GA, MI,NJ,NC

4 Senators:
IL,OH,PA

5 Senators:
FL

6 Senators:
NY, TX

10 Senators:
CA

I not so seriously pick the Senators

Suppose the 1 Senator states keep their most senior Senator
AL: Shelby (R)
AK: Stevens (R)
AR: Lincoln (D)
CO: Allard (R)
CT: Dodd (D)
DE: Biden (D)
HI: Inouye (D)
ID: Craig (R)
IA: Grassley (R)
KS: Brownback (R)
KY: McConnell (R)
LA: Landreiu (D)
ME: Snowe (R)
MS: Cochran (R)
MT: Baucus (D)
NE: Hagel (R)
NV: Reid (D)
NH: Gregg (R)
NM: Domenici (R)
ND: Conrad (D)
OK: Inhofe (R)
OR: Wyden (D)
RI: Reed (D)
SC: Graham (R)
SD: Johnson (D)
UT: Hatch (R)
VT: Leahy (D)
WV: Byrd (D)
WY: Enzi (R)
That's 16 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

2 Senators: keep current
AZ 2R
IN DR
MD 2D
MA 2D
MN DR
MO DR
TN 2R
VA DR
WA 2D
WI 2D
That's 8 Republicans and 12 Democrats

Gainers:
GA: 2R + Perdue (R)
MI: 2D + Granholm (D)
NJ: 2D + Corzine (D)
NC: 2R + Jones (R)
IL: 2D + Blagojevich (D) + Emanuel (D)
OH: DR + Strickland (D) + DeWine (R)
PA: DR + Rendell (D) + Ridge (R)
FL: DR + J. Bush (R) + Graham (D) + Crist (R)
NY: 2D + Hinchey (D) + Spitzer (D) + Nadler (D) + Suozzzi (D)
TX: 2R + Perry (R) + DeLay (R) + Armey (R) + L. Bush (R)
CA: 2D + Pelosi (D) + Davis (D) + Schwarznegger (R) + Angelides (D) + Bustamante (D) + Sanchez (D) + Westley  (D)
20 Republicans and 31 Democrats

I predict 44 Republicans and 56 Democrats

[jimrtex]

1 Senator:
AL,AK,AR,CO,CT,DE,HI,ID,IA,KS,
KY,LA,ME,MS,MT,NE,NV,NH,NM,ND,
OK,OR,RI,SC,SD, UT, VT, WV, WY

2 Senators:
AZ, IN,MD,MA,MN,MO,TN,VA,WA,WI

3 Senators:
GA, MI,NJ,NC

4 Senators:
IL,OH,PA

5 Senators:
FL

6 Senators:
NY, TX

10 Senators:
CA

In this scenario, the Congress would switch the apportionment scheme.  Each State would be guaranteed one senator.  Thereafter, the state with the largest population per senator would gain an additional senator, and so on.  So initially Diane Feinstein would have to represent almost 34 million Californians, and then Barbara Boxer would be added and they would split the load with almost 17 million each.  Next in line for help would be Kay Bailey Hutchison and Chuck Schumer, in Texas and New York, and then California would get a 3rd senator, before Florida got its 2nd.

In 2000, a State would have one senator for every 4,033,837 persons, or fraction thereof.

Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, and Louisiana would gain a 2nd senator, and California, Florida, New York, and Ohio would lose a senator.

As a curiousity, what in the Constitution requires that the 2 senators be elected at large, rather than by districts?

[they don't love you like i love you]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

One could argue the "elected by the people thereof" part arguably mandates that, since it arguably applies to all the people in the state. One could also bring a suit as a resident of any state attempting that on the grounds that this denies them of their right to two Senators.

Not that any state would be likely to try this though, and there wouldn't be much of a reason.

[jimrtex]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

One could argue the "elected by the people thereof" part arguably mandates that, since it arguably applies to all the people in the state. One could also bring a suit as a resident of any state attempting that on the grounds that this denies them of their right to two Senators.

But compare that to the Article I, Section 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

....

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

So what are the differences?

Each state has two senators, while each state may have a different number of representative.  But that doesn't mean that the representatives must be elected from districts.  They are elected from districts because, Congress has exercised its authority under the Times, Places, Manners, clause of Article I, Section 4, which applies equally to both houses.

There are differences in qualifications, representatives 25 years old and 7 years a citizen, and senators 30 years old and 9 years a citizen, but most notably, both must be an inhabitant of the state from which they were chosen.  Is there a difference between "in" and "for"?

The Governor shall issue writs of election to fill vacancies in representatives and senators.  Does the fact that the Government may make a temporary appointment of a senator, have anything to do with election from districts or not?

So how does "chosen by the People of the Several states" and "elected by the people thereof" differ? 

The "people thereof" is simply a replacement for "legislature thereof".  Does this mean that somehow there is a Peoplehood consisting of all the electors of a State?, which is different than "the People"?

[minionofmidas]

In other words, that Senators are elected at large is a part of the unwritten Constitution, not the written one.

[jimrtex]

In other words, that Senators are elected at large is a part of the unwritten Constitution, not the written one.

It appears so.  I suppose that there might be something in the legislative history of the 17th Amendment that indicated that the people of the whole state were replacing the legislature.

Maybe someone could bring suit under the VRA.  At large elections for other multi-member offices have been ruled to be discriminatory.

[minionofmidas]

In other words, that Senators are elected at large is a part of the unwritten Constitution, not the written one.

It appears so.  I suppose that there might be something in the legislative history of the 17th Amendment that indicated that the people of the whole state were replacing the legislature.

Maybe someone could bring suit under the VRA.  At large elections for other multi-member offices have been ruled to be discriminatory.

I doubt the SC will care.