Do you still like the Senate?

So something came to me while reading David Swanson's excellent new book, Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union: a lot of people complain that we must have a Senate in order to avoid really populous states from pushing smaller states out of debates. Do our intuitions hold, though, when we consider a point brought up by Swanson--that representatives of around 11.25% of the country's population (DC and territories not included) have the numbers to filibuster any bill? If we're talking equal representation, why shouldn't we give all 524 counties in the country 1 vote instead of giving each state 2 votes? Isn't that the logical conclusion? Under such a scheme, though, residents of Ontario County, NY would have 95x the voting power as the 9.5 million living in LA County, CA. Absurd, right? Well why should Wyomingites have 70x the voting power as those living in CA!?

Here's an idea: get rid of the Senate! In guarding against the mobocracy of the populous states, it has paradoxically become a tool for mobocracy of the few. Why should 11.25% of the population be able to derail the agenda of the rest of the 88.75% of the country?