What if the Senate Represented People by Race, Income, and/or Gender?

This is a great article by Annie Lowry, in which she speculates about a new way to organize the Senate.  She points out that having senators represent states creates strange incentives for senators to shape laws that are clearly discordant with national interests.  In contrast, she considers a Senate in which people are represented by race, income, and/or gender.  The legislative benefits are obvious.

Speaking for myself, the Senate alone is enough to call into question our national commitment to democracy.  The Senate has no democratic purpose.  It represents lines on a map, not people.  Democracies are about representing people, not square miles.  Consider that 50% of the U.S. population lives in 10 states who have 20 senators.  The other half of the population lives in 40 states with 80 senators.  The fact that the Senate completely violates basic tenets of democracy--e.g. one person, one vote--is obvious.  That the Senate has historically slowed legislation to produce a more equitable society (e.g. civil rights acts in the 1930s), further supports my assertion that it is more than a non-democratic body; it is anti-democratic.  (See also Kevin Drum's post, demonstrating that the more money people have, the more Senators support their legislative interests.  Not only so, but the more poor people want something, the more likely the Senate is to act against their interests.)