Ah the Senate.

• People from Wyoming get 80x the say as people from California.
• Even if you combined the smallest 10 states into one new state, voters in Michigan (only the 10th biggest state by population) would still have less say in the Senate than voters in the new state.
• If you combined the smallest 15 states into one new state, then turned metro NYC into a new state, which one do you think should get more Senators (by population)?
  
• If you combined the smallest 25 states into one new state, voters in California would still have less say in the Senate than voters from the new state.

The Senate gives out-sized power to flyover-state-dwelling yokels. I propose consolidating some of the less-populated areas into new states. Example:

Combine Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas into a vast new state called Evangelica that gets two Senators. Residents of Evangelica couldn't really complain about their decreased power in the Senate, because they still have much more than people from a lot of US states. They could focus their new state government on issues important to people in that region, like erecting Christian monuments on public grounds and legalizing torture conversion camps for gays, but their federal power would dwindle to a more appropriate level.

Some other consolidation options:

• Combine Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee into a new state called Pedorastia.
  
• Combine West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, and western PA into a new state called Incestia.