By definition, one cannot disenfranchise people who are already adequately represented

Yes, and I'm arguing that the level of inequality between high/low population states means that high population state citizens are not adequately represented. Can you address this directly? Or are you just going to ignore it.

as they would need to be deprived of a right or privilege. The more you water down representation for the sake of those already highly represented areas, the more it decreases the value of the representation of the already minimally represented areas, which will then initiate a call for their representation to be increased to ensure that they are not loosing the minimal political clout they are owed by law.

Everybody gets their share of the population, +2. This is equal distribution with an agreed-upon minimum to acknowledge each states right to representation.

Right now the status quo of representation has resulted in a relatively even back-and-forth across the political spectrum. But every prediction of increased electorate counts vastly favors one party over the other based on demographics, So it has become a polarizing political issue because it strongly favors one side. It would also reduce the need for candidates to focus on anything but high population areas as low population areas would have been effectively marginalized in terms of political power, thus effectively disenfranchising them (And for the sake of argument, it’s disenfranchisement to the sparsely populated states, because all of your arguments so far involve something being taken away from them. The larger, more represented states Are not disenfranchised because they lack neither privilege nor right. They have the right to their share of the population +2, which they have been given)