Opinion on how the Senate is Allocated

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If the dis-proportionality between the populations of different units was kept to a sensibly low level, and the boundaries of the states actually reflected rational and concise geopolitical units, then it would not be that awful. But neither of these exist in any form. State borders have been drawn in an extremely arbitrary way that in no way has anything to do with any of the community of interests that exist across the country, and the disproportional population distribution between states reaches an insanely high factor of more than 64. States like the Dakotas and Wyoming are so small that they are essentially rump areas that are devoid of anything resembling a cohesive community of interest within their borders, while states like California, Texas, New York, and Florida contain a wide range of vastly different groups of communities of interests within their borders that they really have no actual shared identity spanning the whole state. The Senate by the way does not do anything to actually protect rural areas over urban areas in general. It only protects very specific rural areas. Certainly, the people in areas like Interior California, Northern California, Upstate New York, Downstate Illinois are distinct rural areas completely drowned out by the structure of the US Senate despite having more people in them than a number of rural states. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside Combined Statistical Area in California has nearly 3 times the population as that of the average US State, yet does not even have just a single state to itself. Also in California, the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Combined Statistical Area also has more people than the average US State does, yet both of them along with a vast number of other areas are all lumped into the state of California.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Each existing State has equal representation so seems like a FA to me.

That is completely untrue. Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, and West Virginia each have far more Senate representation than California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Virginia do.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

People who think the Senate isn’t representative enough clearly don’t understand the purpose of the Senate to begin with.

On the contrary, most are very aware of the purpose of the Senate, just disagree with that purpose. This is a very weak argument I've seen trotted out to defend the institution, but it could easily also be used to argue in favour of, say, the Estates General or the old House of Lords.

I won't defend feudalism; but the UK is a unitary country; the US is a federation. That's why the House of Lords makes little sense; but the US senate does.

I generally believe that centralized countries should generally have unicameral legislatures and federal/decentralized countries should have powerful senates like the US one.

On that note, I wonder why Canada's Senate has so little power and is not appointed in a 1 province = 1 vote fashion.

The US is far more centralized than you seem to think. Almost every issue in the current period of time ends up getting decided by SCOTUS, and ends up affecting every state in the process.