WE NEED TO CHANGE THE U.S. SENATE

John Dickinson was one of the Founders but you will probably NEVER hear Mark Levin tell you that Dickinson's original idea for the Senate was to make it something like the British House of Lords.  His general conception of an aristocratic assembly was enacted by giving each State the same representation and denying the people the right to vote directly for senators.

This has led to an anti-urban bias in the Senate, as David Leonhardt points out:

So the presidential calendar becomes another cause of what Edward Glaeser, a conservative-leaning Harvard economist, calls our “anti-urban policy bias.” Suburbs and rural areas receive vastly more per-person federal largess than cities. One big reason, of course, is the structure of the Senate: the 12 million residents of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina have eight United States senators among them, while the 81 million residents of California, New York and Texas have only six. 

Compounding this is the disproportionate effect two rural states, Iowa and New Hampshire, have on presidential politics, something also noted by Leonhardt:

Mr. Knight and Mr. Schiff analyzed daily polls in other states before and after an early state had held a contest. The polls tended to change immediately after the contest, and the changes tended to last, which suggested that the early states were even more important than many people realized. The economists estimated that an Iowa or New Hampshire voter had the same impact as five Super Tuesday voters put together.

This system, the two men drily noted in a Journal of Political Economy paper, “represents a deviation from the democratic ideal of ‘one person, one vote.’ ”