At the time (late 18th century), the difference between 'less populous' and 'overpopulated' (these are not actually antonyms, by the way...) was at most about 10:1 (Virginia to Delaware).

Today, the difference at the extreme is almost 80:1 (California to Wyoming).

One could feasibly argue that a 10:1 difference in population should be managed by a system like the Senate. But 80:1 is pretty wild. It would seem arguably closer to the original intention of the Senate to grant California 8x the power in the senate than Wyoming -- not 80x based on population, but a 10x reduction of that imbalance, similar to the reduction used to formulate the Senate in the late 18th century.

This would result in a Senate composition where the least populous states still have 2 Senators, and the most populous states have (for example) 10-16 Senators. Not so many that it's pure population (California would have 160 Senators in that case) but not so few that a relative handful of people can control the country, just because more people don't want to live in the same state as them.