I should have said and been more clear. I mean it’s good that we have a bicameral legislature with an upper and lower chamber. Bicameralism is good because it acts as a check and balance to the problem of a unicameral legislature being more susceptible to corruption as well as more existential threats, such as being dissolved by a president or taken over by the military.

Having a second chamber allows one to act as a revising body to the other, creates a back and forth that ultimately results in better legislation. Further, in America, I subscribe to the idea that the Senate–with its longer terms, smaller size, and equal distribution among the states–acts a cooling saucer to the more directly elected House, which comes in with hot ideas and mandates that have a two-year shelf life. The House is supposed to be more nimble and responsive. The Senate is less nimble but with more power vested in each seat. I’d be fine with expanding the sizes of both chambers, but they would need a new office building. I think unicameralism or even bicameralism in which both chambers have equal power would cause more problems than it solves.

I get that everyone hates the Senate but seems to love their Senator, and that certain senior senators end up locking up a seat until they are senile dinosaurs that die in office. My magic wand idea is that if there is a government shutdown or failure to fill a cabinet or Supreme Court vacancy, it should trigger a snap recall election of the senior senator’s seat. They can run in it, but so can anyone else. I like the idea of six year terms, as a matter of consistency, for that cooling saucer factor, but if they can’t do their jobs they should face the voters promptly. I also like the idea that the upper chamber has overlapping terms so as to operate continuously, instead of, as in our lower chamber, having all the members up for reelection every two years.