Well, as long as he goes about making the changes he wants in a constitutional way, more power to him. Go for it! All it takes is 2/3 of each House of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.
He is exactly right that the Senate is anti-democratic. That is a feature, not a bug.
Oddly, nobody’s ever been able to whip up much enthusiasm for changing the system. Nobody seems to care much that it takes 75 Californians to equal the vote for the Senate of one guy from Wyoming.
Of course, if the two Houses are elected on the exact same basis, what’s the point of having two?
Wyoming should improve the quality of their Senators.
Because, as I've stated a million times, the U.S. House represents population interests, and the U.S. Senate represents geographic interests. Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee will never be Senator Shelia Jackson-Lee, because being a legislator from Texas means completely different things in the House and Senate. House districts are vastly different in their constituency than the state has a whole.
Ironically, your comment proves that the anti-17thers pretty much agree wholeheartedly with the liberal subject of this article ("Wahhhh! Abolish the U.S. Senate if it's members aren't chosen the way I want!"), albeit for completely different reasons.
It would actually make more logical sense to abolish most of the STATE Senates, since UNLIKE the U.S. Senate, there really IS no difference between their legislators and state house legislators. BOTH represent population interests (my state house district = gerrymandered to elect a Chicago Democrat, my state senate district = gerrymandered to elect a Chicago Democrat) But of the course the anti-17thers seem to think things would be sooooo much better if those state Senates had even more power.