The point of direct election (or appointment, as in the original rules) is that there is a fixed pair of formulas: 1.) Population, and 2.) Per geographically separate unit.

A given combined formula (logarithmic or whatever) can by correct selection of parameters give the same--or close to it--result for a given set of data, but if the parameters can be fiddled politically, they will. Like rorting or gerrymandering or whatever, you always get it from a political system.

I have wondered whether this issue was at the root of the UK's handing over of some independence to Wales and Scotland, the idea being that with the current arrangement, Britain could potentially claim to have four distinct geographical units.

The swedish upper house (before 1970 iirc) was appointed by the regional and local assemblies. I think that was a good model as it prevented the creep of powers to the highest level by giving lower levels representation. Since it was the assemblies and not the local executives it also kept the seperation of powers (in contrast to the Councils make-up).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se