> attempting to game the system by subdividing certain states but not others

Oh, so you're against sneaky "some but not others" schemes? Great! Me too! So why are you going the opposite direction?

You're supporting a status-quo where a partisan bloc on the federal level can already go: "It's OK for Florida, but prohibited for New-York", or vice-versa.

You're opposing something that'd fix the-thing-you-hate by giving both of those states equal capability.

> The senate was never supposed to provide representation relative to population

So what? That doesn't change. It's non-changing was a core requirement in the proposal, and I've pointed it out several times now. That aspect literally can't change via amendment. Why are you suggesting it'd change anyway?

This is about enabling people (enough of them, anyway) to (re-)choose their states. It's always been an entirely different segment of the pipeline!