In recent years (and in recent weeks) the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and its supporters have advocated abolishing the Senate- in addition to ICE and the Electoral College. They also want to replace the presidency and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by Congress.
Implementing such changes would require amending the Constitution.
After all, Article I, Section of the Constitution states the following:
“All legislative Powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
The size of the Senate is based upon equal representation for each state (which favors the states with smaller populations), while the size of the House is based on the populations of the states (which favors the states with larger populations).
Such provisions in the Constitution are the result of the Great Compromise (a.k.a. the Connecticut Compromise), in which the Founding Fathers decided to establish a bicameral Congress. Doing so prevented the states with larger populations from dominating the states with smaller populations.
The Electoral College was also the result of compromise among the Founding Fathers. This was due to the belief that America should be a republic instead of a democracy, for they fear that becoming a democracy (or an excess thereof) would result in tyranny by the majority. In addition, if no presidential candidate gets a majority of votes from the Electoral College, then the House of Representatives chooses the winner.
These provisions, along with the presidential authority on appointing justices to the Supreme Court (pending approval of the Senate), can be found in Article II of the Constitution.
So, if the DSA wishes to implement such changes, then the Constitution would have to be amended. Article V states that supermajorities are required in order to amend the Constitution, by means of a proposal of two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Then the amendment has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (either by their respective legislatures or by state conventions).
The odds of such an amendment being proposed and ratified is unlikely.
Perhaps the DSA should read the Constitution when it comes to implementing such radical changes. Then it would realize these changes cannot be made just by passing a law.
Or maybe the DSA does not care what the Constitution says.
But regardless of their views, they have to abide by the Constitution.
