Has the time finally come to do away with the U.S. Senate? The U.S. Senate is based on the antiquated notion that all states should have an equal say. This was originally planned so big states wouldn’t have more of a say than smaller states. But there is a good reason why big states should have more of say than small states. They’re bigger, get it? Giving bigger states more say is more democratic. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Thank you in advance to all who reply 
Define bigger? I don’t think population and size match up perfectly, and it would be representation proportional to population that would be more democratic.
There’s a reason the Founding Fathers enacted the Connecticut Compromise. Bigger does not equal better. The needs and desires of Wyoming and its residents are just as important as the needs and desires of New york. More so, in my book, because New York is full of Democrats! 
No, the time has not come. The very idea of states’ rights would be cast aside at the whims of the most populous states. Since I’m from Pennsylvania and I don’t anticipate moving anytime soon that might not be so bad, but think about this: Alaska has the most area and Rhode Island has the least, and were the Senate eliminated they would both be dictated to by California. Do you think that the people of California knows better how to govern areas that are completely different in every respect than the people who live there already? Do you think that those states, those unique political divisions, should simply be thrown away at the whim of people who (a good bit of the time) have no idea about the person they voted for except for party affiliation?
Bad idea. Very, very bad idea. The Senate by its very nature is a moderating influence. It is not nearly as responsive or reflexive as the House, and due to equal representation it requires people to compromise. In theory this puts a check on bad law going through Congress. In practice, well, not so much, but imagine if every law was all but rubber stamped the moment it was proposed on a regional basis? Without the Senate there is a good possibility that something like that could happen.
I think things are fine just the way they are. Oh, and one other thing: there are two ways to get rid of the Senate. The first is that the Congress drafts an amendment calling for the dissolution of the Senate and 2/3rds of the states approve. The chances of that: less than zero. The other way is that the states themselves hold a convention and then submit their resolution for approval. The chances of that: even less than the first option.
Yes, the Senate should be abolished – not only for the reasons Jim B. gives, but because an undivided one-house legislature, which can make binding decisions more easily, is stronger as against the executive branch than is a two-house legislature.
The Senate actually used to be selected by the state governments early on, and while I brought this up as a good idea to return to here a long time ago, someone replied that state governments are run by corrupt used car salesmen and lawyers, and probably not the people we want selecting our Senators.
Anyway with regard to the OP: dissolving the Senate would make us one step closer to full-fledged Democracy, and as best as I’ve heard it described, a Democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what’s for dinner. In my opinion the Senate is there as a good check against massive groupthink, and would hopefully protect against a dictator every rising to power (or having much power if he got there).
Unfortunately, even those methods might not be effective.
It might be argued that abolishing the Senate outright is not the same as “depriving” a state of its “equal suffrage” therein – the courts have never ruled on the question, as it’s never come up. But a broad reading of the above might impose a requirement of unanimous approval by the state legislatures; either that, or two separate amendments, one to delete the above text and one to abolish the Senate.
No, they don’t know better; the Alaskans and Rhode Islanders would get screwed. But i’m not seeing your point.
Under the current system (if i’m understanding it correctly) Alaskans, Rhode Islanders, and Californians have equal representation in the Senate. This means that legislation will (in theory) not be the will of any one of those states, but a collective compromise by all of them.
Under a proportional representation system, Californians would dominate. This means that legislation would most likely favour California over the other two states. Alaskans and Rhode Islanders would get screwed, as I said. Californians on the other hand would recieve the opposite. Which, to me, seems fair; there’s more Californians. Overall, most people are not getting screwed.
Actually, Bob55, democracy is three sheep and one wolf voting on what to have for dinner. IRL the sheep outnumber the wolves and democracy is the only defense they’ve got.
Nitpick: That’s not what proportional representation means. The House of Representatives, in its current formation, is not an example of proportional representation.
One of the fundamental foundations of Democracy is Majority Rule with an insistance on Minority Rights. Doing away with the Senate denies minority states and their citizens any number of rights. The masses are asses, and need to be moderated. The Senate does that.
And the needs and desires of an individual New Yorker are just as important as the needs and desires of an individual Wyomingite. Wyomingan. Wyomingoloid. Whatever.
I wasn’t referring to Proportional Representation; I would have capatalised if it I had. I just couldn’t think of a better term to use in a situation where a population proportions dictate representation levels.
I think the idea is absolute crap as well but I can add another counterargument. Proponents of as much democracy as possible only seem to include a headcount of people as the only important criteria for an area’s political power. The idea of state’s rights means that entities made of of not only people but land area, natural resources, semi-unique culture(s) and everything else that defines that entity is taken into account. The current system isn’t perfect but it does allow that massive area of Alaska with its vast natural resources have some clout even though most lower-48’ers no extremely little about it. We have a great nation but it is about much more than simple headcounts of homo sapiens in each diverse area.
But what’s the point of that?
Actually, I think what you’re describing is consociational democracy. Something that is sometimes necessary as a political compromise but not, IMO, a desirable thing in and of itself; and the arguments for it are much more compelling WRT ethnic or cultural groups than WRT territorial ones. And in neither case compelling WRT America. This is a nation-state and there is but one demos.
I’m not in favor of anything which consolidates power or speeds up the legislative process.
The more important question is how the established totality of state power is to allocated as between the legislative and executive branches. I say the presidency has grown far too strong and needs a stronger, therefore more streamlined, Congress to balance it.
Remember, also, that any institutional barrier which makes it harder to enact legislation likewise makes it harder to amend or repeal legislation.
A proportional-representation based, multiparty system would do it still better. No one political party would be the majority party in Congress, ever. Nothing would get done unless several substantial and very different minority factions – minorities of opinion, not region of residence – could agree to it.
In any case, what makes you think we don’t already have sufficient institutions in place, quite apart from the Senate, to moderate (a better word would be thwart) the will of the masses? In practical effect, what we’ve got now is a system where the minority of the rich rule, and whatever they want gets done, and whatever they oppose gets shelved. It’s plutocracy, not democracy.