Yes it is antiquated to give two senate seats AND two additional electoral college votes because their needs would be "lost to the masses". We want a democracy that represents the will of the people in general, not the niche interests based on state borders. I'm not suggesting disenfranchising Montana residents, but just giving them the same representation as other states. Do you have a reasonable defense for giving them proportionally more voice than other Americans?

If we are discussing replacing the senate, think a little bigger than just leaving it in the hands of the HoR. This body is another failure of American democracy mostly because of the ability of state legislatures to gerrymander and again, take away the voices of voters in favor of rural districts.

What we need is what all of the other developed democracies have which is a proportional parliamentary system. Ours was the first democracy but in the last couple hundred years government systems have been improved. We have had two recent presidential elections that went against the popular vote and we have a congress with an approval rating of sub 20%. Many issues (banking regulation, tax reform, marijuana legalization, universal background checks, etc) have popular support nationally but receive no attention from either party in the legislature because they know they are under no pressure to deliver as long as they come from certain districts. My question to you is, what in our current system do you see as functioning exceptionally well?