Should the senate be changed?

[Del Tachi]

As more and more people flock to cities, by 2050, about 15 states are expected to have 70% of the population. Especially as the rural-urban divide continues to grow , this could spell out trouble, like one party (the Republican party) has a lock on the senate just by winning 40% of the vote or something like that. I get the point of the senate was the represent the states, not the people, but since California is a state with more people, shouldn't it get more senators, the same way it needs more resources and has a bigger economy than any other state? I kind of think that a cool solution would be if senator's actual votes were weighted based on the population they represent, but that would bring new problems, like the fact that population is always changing and Republicans still exist even in CA and NY. We're already begginning to see this problem today; the senators who voted for Kavanaugh represent a minority of the country, and despite Dems winning the PV in 2016, and 2018 being a D landslide, it'll take another semi-landslide to flip the senate in 2020. Increased partisanship could make it more or less impossible for the party that aligns with urban voters to ever get a senate majoirty, even if they represent a majoity of the country. Does omething need to be done, and if so, what?

Bolded - The House of Representatives already accounts for the population differences in each state, as California has more representatives in the House than any other state. It would be a redundancy to have the Senate follow the same design, with more senators allocated to the populous states.

Just leave it as it is. Each state has different people, different lifestyles, different customs,  and different beliefs. Some states are more religious, some are more diverse, some have more resources, etc. The senate ensures that the differences in each state will always get some  attention, regardless of population (or lack thereof). And correspondingly, the House ensures that those smaller states don’t get too much attention.

When you factor that the Senate doesn’t exist on its own, that it exists alongside the House, then you should see that the system is fine as it is.

But why should voters from smaller states get extra protection in the senate and EC, when voters from large states and Urban Cities don't get any extra "protection" I would argue the house doesn't favor cities since usually cities vote 95% D, but rual areas are mostly 70-30 R minus rural districts that have a large minority population. In 2018, even though Dems won the house, it took them a landslide to win, whereas in 2016, Reblicans held more seats but barely won the PV. Literally, in every way, if you're a voter in an urban city, your vote is less powerful than a rural voter. That just seems wrong to me. Look at how the Rs can easily get a trifecta in an R+0 year, but Ds have to win in a landslide. Right now, there's only 2 Rs in objectivley blue states: CO and ME, but Dems have senate seats in WV, MT, AL and OH, alongside most of the seats in tossup states and still don't have a majority in the senate.

The fact that Democrats win 95% of the urban vote (which is only true if you define "urban" as places with New York or San Francisco-type density, there are more Republican votes in urban/suburban areas that rural areas)  isn't a problem with the  House of Representatives, it's a problem with the Democratic Party. 

[Del Tachi]

Yes. I think there should be 150 senators with 50 from each state being up for election every 2 years. The first 50 in the first year, The next 50 after that, and the final 50 after that. Afterwards, cycle it again.

Increasing the size of the Senate substantially would probably require a rework of it's rules, as well.  The Senatorial courtesy, anonymous holds, and the rules of unlimited debate becomes increasingly cumbersome the more seats are added.   

The most fundamental difference between the House and Senate is not term-lengths or constituency sizes, but that senators can exert individual rights as members of the body whereas the House is essentially mob rule by "a majority of the majority."