Starting off an otherwise decent analysis with the wrong premise.
The U.S. Senate has NOT made a 'strong argument'.
You guys misread the comment and missed the sarcasm. He said "Now that the U.S. Senate has made a strong argument for unicameral government".
We currently have a "bicameral" legislature, i.e., two branches, the House and the Senate. His crack about going to a unicameral system was just a sarcastic way of stating that the Senate is making a strong case that it has become irrelevant and dangerous and should be abolished. Thus, we would be left with only the House, i.e. a "unicameral" legislature.
Thanks for the clarification. You are correct. I was running off Legend's comment as my last post before going to work this morning.
Sorry about that. My bad. /slang