> What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the people it governs?

The United States is a union of states. The people have representation at the federal level, and the state level.

> Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented?

No. The people of the state are the state, not the government of the state. Again, the state gets representation because we are a union of states. And local governments get representation at the state level. There are many concerns of a people, and we have people representing those concerns at different levels of government, from local to state to federal. Otherwise we could just have a single person represent everyone.

> Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance?

The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC). The EC is the House + Senate. So no, it's not an imbalance.

> Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.

I don't have a side. I vote for policies that I agree with, which has changed over time. Party support of certain issues has changed over time as well.

I am pretty tired, however, of people crying about foundational aspects of my country because they lost an election. I think the increasing concentration of power in the federal government is a bad idea.

> people crying about foundational aspects of my country because they lost an election

It's more a genuine concern that continuing on this path will result in a federal government whose policies don't reflect the views of the vast majority of the nation. You can already see this on issues such as cannabis.

> The People are represented twice as said before (House and EC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that the EC adequately represents the people, since it takes the Senate numbers into account.

States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitution -- you remove that Constitution at peril of the continued existence of that union.

Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.

> if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union

As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?

They already have.

If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.

They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.

Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states.

If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.

States != people. People have to vote directly in order for it to be considered a referendum.

It's a referendum of the states, as was agreed to by the states when the union was formed.

It doesn't have to be people voting directly. It shouldn't be.