Any unicameral advocates in elected office?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course, amending the Senate would be *VERY* difficult.

It's impossible.  Changing the composition of the Senate would require all 50 States to agree to it instead of the usual 38.  It would be far easier to weaken the powers of the Senate by a constitutional amendment that would strip the Senate of its role in passing certain types of legislation, such as appropriation bills.  A Senate that was focused more on its advice and consent role wouldn't be a bad thing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can't see any amendment to change from a bicameral system passing.  Indeed, amendments to strip the Senate of any powers would be very problematic unless it could presented in the context of allowing each house to specialize more.  I'd say there's zero chance of an end around unless we had States that were more equal in size.  We currently have 14 States that have 3 Representatives or fewer and would thus have significantly less clout than they currently do if the Senate is stripped of power. I can't see any of those States approving any amendment to reduce the power of the Senate unless that were an effect but not the intent of the amendment.  Plus there are another 7 States with 4 or 5 Representatives that would see enough loss of clout that passage would be difficult.

Nor do I see any chance whatsoever for a push to proportional representation passing.  However, a quasi-proportional system is possible in the House without amending the Constitution.  The use of single-member districts is not constitutionally mandated, so changing the law to allow or even force States to use proportional voting on a Statewide basis would be legal.

EDIT: For hoots and giggles I went ahead and did a by State PR using the largest remainder method and the Presidential Vote.  That would for the 111th Congress have given a House with 233 Democrats 201 Republicans and 1 Peace and Freedomer (from California of course).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For hoots and giggles I went ahead and did a by State PR using the largest remainder method and the Presidential Vote.  That would for the 111th Congress have given a House with 233 Democrats 201 Republicans and 1 Peace and Freedomer (from California of course).

Also, your PR calculations for the House are interesting - how'd you figure them? I'm surprised by those numbers - since Democrats won the House popular vote by, I believe, 8 points, I'd figure they'd have a larger majority.

I already said how I did it.  I used the Presidential vote rather than the House vote since there are a number of districts where there was only token opposition if any.  BTW, using the National Presidential vote and allocating vis the largest remainder method yields 230 Democrats, 199 Republicans, 2 Naderites, 2 Libertarians, 1 Constitution, and 1 Green, so the effect of using 50 constituencies instead of one big one was minimal as far as the big parties were concerned.

Doing that with the House vote yields (once one eliminates all votes for independents and write-ins for convenience's sake) 233 Democrats, 194 Republicans, 4 Libertarians, 2 Green, 1 Constitition, and 1 Independence using the largest remainder method.