Should the senate be changed?

[Former President tack50]

The whole point of the Senate is to reinforce federalism by making it 1 state = 1 vote.

Though I would expand the Senate to 150 Senators so that all states elect one of their senators every 2 years (so 3 per state) instead of having some states off each year. Depending on how bold we are allowed to go, give the territories and DC 1 senator each as well. (they are not full states so they get representation but not full representation)

A Senate abolition would be bad for my party + people, so no, it should not be done.

Ah, so the classic, follow the rules when it suits me, disregard them when they don't

[Former President tack50]

Honestly unless the people in here defend abolishing the states and ruling all of the US as a single unitary state like say France, they should defend the existence of the Senate.

One of the biggest aspects of federalism is the existance of a second chamber, that is represented in a 1 state = 1 vote basis, to counteract the lower chamber that is 1 person = 1 vote (at least in theory).

Since I am a big fan of federal states for the most part, and there is no real reason to turn the US into a unitary state, I would keep the current senate structure for the most part.

As for in terms of legality, while the Senate can't be abolished it could still be rendered powerless by making it into a chamber that does not matter and can be overridden by the House like the British House of Lords (or the Spanish Senate for that matter).