This is not being judgmental. It's just numbers. It's the math.
Worst off is Wyoming. It gets nothing. It's just too small. Then again, not being last is rather slim consolation for #49 Vermont, and #48 North Dakota, because they actually get left high and dry also.
But things do lighten up some after that. Alaska, #47 is the lowest population of those states that get a member of the House but no Senator. At roughly #39 Idaho the states would all each have at least two House members. But we need to go all of the way up the list to #29 Connecticut before we finally break into Senate representation territory, and to #17 Tennessee to reach what we now consider to be the normal compliment of two Senators.
But it's only fair.
Alternatively, I suppose, we could give the new Legislative branch a single chamber, and seat it with, say, 1,000 members. The upside of that would be that all states would have sufficient population (313,000,000 divided by 1,000 = 313,000) to at least be represented directly. The down side would be that Capitol Hill office space would have to be nearly doubled.
But whenever The Second American Constitutional Convention does happen the one option that it seems inconceivable to me would be forwarded for ratification would be anything that even remotely continues the status quo. This being the case because we all already know the irreconcilable difference between the anti-democratic compromises that the members of the first Convention felt compelled to accept, and our core guiding principle that every person in the voting booth needs to be equal to all others. Instead how crazy is it that every voter in Wyoming, Vermont, and/or North Dakota has triple the political clout of each citizen of each of the 17 most populace states?
Initially there were only 13 of them, and no one really had to join anything so there may have been some justification for a rough form of "equality". But even then one house was far more democratic than the other so, with hindsight, there may have been some actual room to get the job done otherwise. Well, but for the slaves and the indians, I suppose.
In the modern world, though, when the time finally does come for us to acknowledge that our system of government is archaic, and given the fact that we've found ways to fit women into the picture, for example, the hope that a higher concept of equality might prevail seems to be reasonable.
And it's not like we would lack the creativity to be able to shift things around. I for one think that States are more like glorified counties than they are anything resembling true Sovereigns, but I probably am a bit radical even for the times. Still, redistricting 535 Congressional seats without regard to state boundaries looks like only a minor stretch. Or maybe not so if the alternative is for the current Wyoming to become, say, the western half of the new state of Wyobraska. Or we could go with a Unicameral 535 members and let the chips fall where they may. Etc. Etc.
What we cannot do, however, is to continue to tell 38,000,000 Californians "suck it up, keep paying your taxes, and just forget about the fact that you're all a bit light on representation".
After all, our hands have been tied for the last 225 years and so little has changed during the intervening time period that even giving the matter a moments thought would obviously be an unmitigated waste. And, besides that, things just seem to go so much better with the small states being in the drivers seat, and most folks being way in back at the other end of the bus.