Do you support the way the Senate is currently Allocated

[OSR stands with Israel]

Where each state has two senators .


I  support this current system of two senators per state.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

nope. abolish the states.

[RINO Tom]

Of course (R).  I don't support changing our structure of government when it doesn't benefit me politically, either.

[Torie]

It's never going away. The end. Moot point.

I prefer the British parliamentary system myself. (Example: in such a system, Trump would have been bounced as PM by now (in fact, he would never have become PM in the first instance). That ain't happening either.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Given the existence of another, more representative chamber, I believe that the Senate as it is constituted fills an important role. The only thing I would change in regards to Congress is increasing the number of House seats.

[RaphaelDLG]

let the states decide

[Cashew]

No it is indefensible.

[Blue3]

Move to unitary system, have nonpartisan redistricting for the House and greatly expand its membership, and abolish the Senate.

[LLR]

Of course (R) (D).

This - the Senate represents state interests, not people's interests.

[Fight for Trump]

Of course (R) (D).

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Scrap both the House and Senate FPTP system and go for proportional representation

[Mr. Reactionary]

Without commenting on the current membership of the Senate,  I think its current structure is better than the House or presidency and wish we would repeal the 17th amendment. 

[America Needs R'hllor]

It's not perfect, but it's the best option for the US.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Of course not; but as Torie says, the question is moot, because Americans are far too attached to the mythology of the founding fathers to consider a substantial change to the system of government they created. If a majority of Americans approve of an antiquated system of targeted disenfranchisement whereby citizens residing in particular geographic districts are arbitrarily deprived of equal representation in order to empower imaginary voters in sparsely-populated areas to veto the popular will, they will never get behind a proposal to abolish the principle of "one state, two votes" in the Senate - and even if they did, the Senate would fight against it tooth and nail.

In an ideal world, the US would adopt some form of parliamentary democracy, with members elected from the states by proportional representation; but that's not going to happen, and in any event, the Senate isn't near the top of the list of constitutional reforms that ought be made to the present government.

[MarkD]

The current system is fine. I admit that I have toyed with the idea of what would it be like if we were to allocate one U.S. Senator for every five adjacent House districts -- 87 Senators in total, each elected from a district that is composed of five adjacent House districts, but the idea is just something to toy with, and there is no particular merit in changing to that system.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

All states should have equal numbers of senators: zero.