For better or worse, I have a propensity to question everything. Little about the basic structure of our government has changed since the Framers of the American Constitution pioneered a government that was the first of its kind, i.e. a large, constitutional, representative republic. While the Framers had palpable fear of the masses, even when suffrage was limited to White, male landowners, they also knew that anything like a monarchy would be rejected by the well-armed populace. There was also the issue that they had to compromise with small states and slave states in order to have them on board at all. All of this led to a Constitution that wasn't exactly a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, but many of its dysfunctions were later fixed by amendments. Aside from the electoral college, one thing I find odd that remains is the Senate. Why do we need two houses, particularly one as undemocratic as the Senate? Here's an illustration of what I mean by Robert Dahl in How Democratic is the American Constitution, pages 48-49: Such unequal counting of votes for representation seems pretty hypocritical for a nation that so idealizes and maybe even crusades for democracy. The Senate could be phased out by making the next election for only 4 years, and the last election for only 2 years, so that the last 100 Senators' terms end at the same time. One reason the Senate remains is obvious. Small states would not ratify an amendment that reduces their power (need 3/4 for ratification), nor would 2/3 of the Senate vote to get rid of itself. A closer look at the Constitution reveals that the number of States needed to ratify it might actually be 100%, given Article V states that no state can be denied equal suffrage in the senate without its consent. My guess is this means abolishing the Senate would take at least two distinct amendments. One to strike that part of Article V, and another to actually dissolve the Senate. So should we try to get rid of the Senate? Why or why not?