> The clause about Senate representation was clearly written to prevent 3/4ths of the states from depriving the other 1/4 of their Senate representation.
Not necessarily. Consider that originally the US Senate was elected by the state legislatures. Representing the people in the federal government was the role of the House, the Senate was to represent the states. So the concern may not have been that 3/4ths of the states would want to disenfranchise the remainder (which was fairly implausible given that the states benefiting from disproportionate representation outnumber the more populous states), but rather that a populist movement could remove the Senate as a check by the state legislatures on federal power. Which is exactly what happened when the Seventeenth Amendment brought about direct election of US Senators.
Not necessarily. Consider that originally the US Senate was elected by the state legislatures. Representing the people in the federal government was the role of the House, the Senate was to represent the states. So the concern may not have been that 3/4ths of the states would want to disenfranchise the remainder (which was fairly implausible given that the states benefiting from disproportionate representation outnumber the more populous states), but rather that a populist movement could remove the Senate as a check by the state legislatures on federal power. Which is exactly what happened when the Seventeenth Amendment brought about direct election of US Senators.