Once the Constitution was amended to allow the direct election of Senators rather than appointment by the states, the usefulness of a bicameral legislature (as opposed to unicameral) has become asymptotic to zero.
But the saving grace is that each state having two senators gives states with large land areas and small populations a substantially greater voice than they otherwise would have. For whatever that's worth.
I therefore vote to retain the Senate, but with a minimum IQ requirement (80, 90, 110?), mandatory retirement age, and a total reworking of the seniority system so that newly elected Senators aren't powerless.
Steyn is great.
Good plan! But, would you grandfather in those who fail to meet the minimum? Prolly would have to set it at, say, 75, just to insure a quorum!
But the saving grace is that each state having two senators gives states with large land areas and small populations a substantially greater voice than they otherwise would have. For whatever that's worth.
I would say not worth a whole lot anymore. I understand the Great Compromise of the Constitutional Convention, but we should follow New Zealand's and Nebraska's example of unicameral government.
To even things up, statewise, I'd be willing to give each state the same number of representatives as the state with the maximum representatives (California).
I don't know what my state of Hawaii would do with fifty-three congressmen, but it couldn't be worse than the current crop we have.
The extra cost in salaries would be more than compensated by the good riddance of the pompous lot of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body ( puleeeeeeze, can anyone tell me what purpose a senator serves today? ).
The sheer number of representatives (about 2,560 by my calculations) would, in effect, replace all the arrogant big frogs in the small pond with an ocean of toady tadpoles.
Rivet!