Straw man.
My post said nothing as to the merits of that idea, simply that you had a confused sense of what democracy is.
Actually my post also said nothing of the merits of that idea; I was merely pointing out that your definition has no consistency. (Were I a proggie, I'd be squealing "Straw man" right about now.) If A electing B electing C = A electing C, that principle should hold true and electing only the President is democracy. Note that this statement is absolutely neutral as to the respective values of A electing B electing C versus A electing C. If this is confusing, the people are 'A', their elected officials (be it a President or a state legislator) are 'B', and the Senators are 'C'.
Note that this is fundamentally different from the Electoral College because electors run specifically for one purpose only, casting a Presidential vote for one stated individual. In voting for an Electoral College elector one is directly casting a vote for President through a proxy; in electing a state representative who then elects a Senator, one had absolutely zero influence over whom gets that Senatorial vote. One did not even know the Senatorial candidates, much less whom one's representative would vote, because the Senators were elected to represent the state's interests, not the individual voter's interests.
But let us review. Your original statement was:
I find that the current supermajority rules for the senate take an already fairly undemocratic body and make it even less democratic. There's always a balance to be struck, but the senate has gone pretty far away from normal democratic principles.
My response was that the Senate was never designed to be democratic. You then stated:
The senate was most certainly intended to be democratic representation, just of a different sort than the house. Additionally, there's really no reason to believe that the framers of the Constitution wanted to give this much extra power to smaller states. When the constitution was ratified the ratio of the largest state's population to the smallest one was somewhere around 10:1. Today the ratio in population between California and Wyoming is about 66:1. There is no particular reason to believe that the founders wanted to give anywhere NEAR that much extra power to small states.
The senate was already designed to offer protection from the whims of the moment through longer terms. The filibuster is nowhere to be found in the constitution, and a system through which 17% of the population can stop all legislation/nominees/etc is excessive in my opinion.
I'm assuming you had a point in posting that. Therefore, again you should defend the concepts that:
(A) The Founding Fathers set up the Senate to be democratically representative, even though the ratio of individual representation at the time varied by a factor of 10;
(B) A ratio of individual representation of 10:1 is acceptably democratically representative, but a ratio of individual representation of 66:1 is not acceptably democratically representative.
To go a bit further back, when the Democrats were filibustering Bush's nominees you supported their use of the filibuster. You made no arguments about 10:1 ratios versus 66:1 ratios. You made no arguments about failing democracy. The conclusion is inescapable: You have no enduring principles, but will twist and turn and argue any point, even reversing yourself, to make the left correct and the right wrong on every single issue, every single time. If one particular metric fails, you simply find another metric and declare that this one is the important one. Pick arbitrary numbers and declare that once again the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong when they do the same exact thing. Every issue, every time. "Spinning" does not begin to describe it; your behavior could only be described by theoretical physicists positing higher dimensions. At this point you simply cannot feel that you are fooling anyone here and I cannot believe you are even fooling yourself, so what's the point?
I don't mean to attack you, I'm just expressing the frustration of arguing politics with someone who starts at "Democrats good, Republicans bad" and works backward on every issue, every time. Feel free to say "straw man" and I'll let it drop.