Some people do not seem to understand that the United States is... a union of states, not a union of people. When those states got together to form a more perfect union they agreed to certain rules so that everybody could be happy and without that system most smaller states would not have joined.
Just like the European Union is a union of states, not of people.
Those who say it should be a straight popular vote on all matters are trying to destroy something which has worked pretty well since 1776. I would tread carefully.
And I would ask, if voting rights should always be apportioned in proportion to population numbers should the UN and other international bodies work the same way? Would Americans consider giving China, India, Indonesia, etc. representation in proportion to their populations? If not, why not?
Political systems are all very imperfect and require much goodwill on the part of everybody to make them work. Those who think the main problem is the system are mistaken. The USSR had an objectively wonderful constitution which guaranteed all sorts of rights while the UK has no written constitution, a state religion of which the monarch is head, and all sorts of medieval customs which, on the face of them, should have been abolished centuries ago. And yet, which is the better country to live in? The difference is that the British make their system work.
The main problem with the political systems in the third world is not that they don't have a good political system, it is that they have a culture which no political system can make successful. When you have a culture of corruption, not respecting the system, trying to take advantage of it, then no system is going to work.
We need to learn to cooperate more and try to work with the system we each have.