Reform the U.S. Senate, Do Not Abolish It
August 3, 2026
by William P. Meyers

Site Search

Popular pages:

Just make State representation fairer

Lately the Democratic Socialists of America Party has been in the news quite a bit. I have been aware of the group since they were formed in 1982, (formed from a splinter of Social Democrats, USA in 1973) but never joined. They were too weenie for me when I was young, too disorganized when I mellowed out starting in the 1990s, but now they seem to be having a comeback. I agree with a number of their positions.

I don't agree with a part of their current program: "Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate." With the exception of the Senate stance, these issues have been around for quite some time among left-Democrats to left-of-Democrats activists, including in the Green Party (which I was active in for over one decade).

Here I want to offer an alternative to abolishing the Senate. I think it can be made more functional for our nation by varying the number of seats each state gets, while keeping the total number of seats at or near 100. But first some background on the institution and why it needs reform.

England, or Great Britain, which governed the original American colonies, had two houses of representative government: the House of Lords and the House of Commons. When the U.S. Constitution was written there was a debate about how to form a more representative federal government. In particular, the (relatively) rich wanted protections against the ordinary citizens. They had read history and knew that rabbles sometimes expropriated the rich. The U.S. Senate accomplished several objectives. It gave the States direct representation, because the Senators were elected by state legislatures. It acted to slow deliberations, requiring actions by both houses, and the signature of the President, to enact laws. It diminished the power of the State of Virginia, then the most populous of the states.

As people will, people complained from time to time. In response to charges of corruption, and to make the nation more responsive to ordinary voters, the XVII (17th) Amendment was passed in 1913.

The most obvious critique of the current Senate structure is it gives far more representation to the voters of small population states than large population states. Thus the least populous state Wyoming, with a population near 600 thousand gets the same number of Senators as the most populous state, California, with a population near 39 million. A ratio of 65 to 1.

There are reasons that states do not always want to be bossed around by the federal government. Giving small states like Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, and the Dakotas one Senator each seems like reform in the right direction to me. While the Electoral College needs to be reformed or abolished (in favor of the overall popular vote), reducing the number of electors in the small states would at least be headed in the right direction.

It is possible that by abolishing the Senate, the largest-population states would have so much power, in the House of Representatives, that they would favor themselves over the small states or the nation as a whole.

My suggestion (not particularly novel) compromises in the direction of reform. Let the ten smallest states have only 1 Senator. Let the five largest population states have 4 Senators.

Obviously other combinations are possible.

Or not. To do this would require a Constitutional Amendment. Those are hard to come by.

Democratic Socialists of America has trouble agreeing among themselves. While some Democratic Party members (like myself) might agree to reform the Senate structure, I would be surprised if a coalition could be formed that could sway the public as a whole to take such action.

But on the whole I would like to congratulate the Democratic Socialists on their revival. I hope more people will listen to them and carefully consider what is best for the United States and the world. And not just for people, but for all of the life forms on this planet Earth.