Because this thread is not about the U.S. Senate specifically. Because almost all our states have two-house legislatures, and not because of the “Great Compromise.”
A bit from time to time but, honestly, no more than other similarly-attuned states. What slippage we have seen has been more due to term-limit legislation passed a few years ago. With a mandatory dearth of legislative experience, we’ve seen a populist bent creep in that we did not see when I was growing up. Then again, I understand this is something of a national phenomenon as well.
Then elect the single house less frequently.
Yes, term limits in state legislatures has largely been disastrous for effective governing and rational policy.
And sacrifice frequent accountability? (just playing devil’s advocate)
And so we’re losing the advantages offered by bicameral legislatures and gaining what exactly? I don’t see any actual advantage of unicameral legislatures, particularly at the state level.
Yeah, populism… that’s something in dire and perpetual need of a short leash.
Populists consistently underestimate (when they do not irrationally deny) the value of career politicians.
Since you put it that way, I’m on board. BAN THE BI. :smack:
Hmm. Interesting, but what I don’t see are any studies, or even discussion, of whose predictions have proven true/false.
This is important! There should be studies! Nebraska is our only existing example in the American context of a dromedary, or unicameral, legislature (as distinct from a Bactrian, or bicameral, legislature).
Easy. It’s in the fucking declaration of independence. All men are created equal. Seeing as the Declaration was specifically created to combat lack of representation, it is clearly stating that all men should have the same vote. We’ve slowly but surely made that more and more true in our country, by returning civil rights to people of all races and sexes. Now we have one more civil rights abuse–that of the people in more populous states.
There are other institutions where one man having more than one vote is considered wrong–say in ballot stuffing or someone in power being able to know how you voted and thus blackmail you. Why should a power imbalance elsewhere be tolerated?
And this is on the level of that. The difference is not minute. The vote of someone in Wyoming has 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California, either by their representatives or in votes for President.
There have been plenty of studies, at least on this side of the pond 
I studied bicameralism as one part of my Masters degree, and my uni library was fortunately fairly flush with books on it.
Unfortunately most seem to be about bicameralism in parliamentary systems rather than presidential ones, but I’m sure they must be out there.
For reference, Big Names in the field are people such as George Tsebelis, Arend Ljiphart, Kaare Strøm, Matthew Gabel, and Wolgang Müller.
You can’t use an originalist argument to say that the United States should make sure the citizens of all 50 states receive exactly the same representative to constituent ratio. That offends logic and history. You’re trying to rely on a document written and then approved by the founding fathers who were the same guys that created the Senate and the Electoral College in the first place. You can’t rely on their words as some meaningful argument for the abolition of the Senate.
One man one vote applies at the ballot box. It doesn’t apply in the legislature. No one has one man one vote in the legislature aside from the men who actually serve in the legislature (the women in the legislature get one vote as well.) Every citizen in the United States actually has three legislative votes at the Federal level, their two Senators and their district’s congressperson.
It doesn’t actually have 3.7 times the voting power, citizens of Wyoming have 3 representatives, just like all the individual citizens of California.
I was going to type up another analogy to point out how preposterous this claim is but is that really necessary? This is just sad. Americans are not equally represented in the Senate. If you support this inequality then defend it. Don’t try to imagine it away.
I live in Chicago, I have 41, 17 of which I can cast myself. 
Because when you only have the one chamber it’s free to vote crazy laws, or power+money for itself. Of course, the President could always veto them, but then it’s much easier to buy off a lone President than it is to buy off a whole Senate.
For that matter, it’s also easier for private moneyed interested to buy off one house than two. And since the latter is pretty much done already… at least make the bastards work for it a little ! 
I also think your OP is funny. “The Founders feared legislative abuse, so they took steps to prevent it from happening. We’ve seen some executive abuse lately. Therefore, those steps should be annulled !”. Presumably so abuse becomes more even ?
As a citizen of a state in the United States you are entitled to representation in Congress. Your congressman in the House and your two State senators. The citizens of California receive the representation they are entitled to just as the citizens of Wyoming do. Are you arguing an individual citizen in California doesn’t have three congressional representatives? And that a citizen of Wyoming has more than three?
What you seem hung up on is the citizen of California’s congressman represents roughly 700,000 people, and his two Senators represent 37 million, whereas the two Senators from Wyoming represent 600,000 and the lone congressman from Wyoming represents 600,000.
But that doesn’t mean any individual Californian has less representation than any individual from Wyoming (what is Wyoming’s demonym?)
One man one vote has never been a principle for anything other than the ballot box to directly elect the representatives themselves. In a Senate election or a House election, it is one man, one vote. Each individual gets to cast one vote in each race in their district, no one gets more than one vote. What happens at the Federal level in terms of the portion of political power a region’s representatives receive relative to the population of that region is not at all related to the concept of “one man, one vote.”
I’m assuming your great-grandparents are probably still loyal voters in Chicago as well. 
<aside>I’ve always felt that the current cap on the size of the HoR is pretty crazy. The population of the US has essentially doubled since we limited the House to 435 members. The UK lower house has 650 members. In France, it’s 577. Germany? 620. We have a much larger population, but have a smaller legislature? Why?</aside>
Wyomingite