No.
I can think of good arguments for bicameralism and the idea of a longer tenured upper chamber.
I can't think of any good arguments for the Senate as presently constructed. The idea of giving tiny states' voters hugely disproportionate say does not make sense in a 50 state county. Arcane rules like the filibuster do not make sense. And, just historically, the US Senate has generally been an impediment to positive social change from the slavery debates to civil rights to regulating robber barons and industrial capitalism to the unconscionable obstructionism under Obama.
So, I would be fine abolishing it or drastically changing the rules and apportionment among the states.
Think about all the bills passed by the Republican-led House that the Senate has killed over the years.
That's true. I was more thinking over the course of history in the long-run.
The House has its own unique problems in not representing the views of the American people. Over the course of history we haven't had the same type of sharp left/right divide between the cities and rural areas. If you could reform the House to represent the national D vs. R vote somewhat closely and remove the absurd gerrymandering, you would solve that problem, but you would still need to address the Senate's undemocratic nature.
As others have pointed out, even without gerrymandering, Democrats would still be at a geographical disadvantage in the House.
The Senate is a two-edged sword -it can act to slow positive social change as you put it, but it can also act to slow negative social change. The Senate is working as it was designed by the Founding Fathers -to paraphrase, by cooling legislation passed by the more democratic, hot-headed House in a saucer.
The Senate prevents us from heading rashly in one direction or the other.
Poll
