The United States Senate should be dissolved

Let me begin by addressing an underlying semantical issue. Any debate like this, where we are discussing if some institution or another should be kept or removed, anyone could subvert it with the semantic foil, "well we don't have to get rid of it, we could change and alter it but still call it the same thing." Yes, it may very well be the case that one non-essential duty allocated to the senate should be kept, it doesn't mean it couldn't be delegated to the same effect. At any time the house could have a specific committee among it who handles the prosecution and investigation of an impeachment charge leveled by the remaining body. With that said, the same could apply conversely, as you hinted at by stating "you could adjust the Senate to be proportionally represented too." If I would have anticipated the debate would have gone in this direction, I would have explicitly stated (more so than I already did) that the intention of the debate was to investigate if the principals embodied in the senate are worth keeping. However, to conclude this part of my rebuttal, I'll at least say that adjusting the senate to be proportional to population would be redundant or pointless beyond the semantics of it, where as dissolution would not, as a real change beyond names assigned to bodies with certain tasks would be involved. Next, on the notion that two bodies increases the likelihood that a bill will be 'better' is, with all due respect, utterly devoid of logic. Just because one group is arbitrarily differentiated from the other doesn't mean they have any different interest or approach when it comes to evaluating bills. The only things that makes the house a "different body" than the senate are 1, powers that aren't in any meaningful way related to bill-writing or determining its content; and 2, the size of their constituency. These are both either once again, just a semantic or arbitrary line draw within a group of people, or something perfectly solvable by re-delegating within the house, and then refer to the opening part of my response. Now to get to the heart of the debate. The co-existence of the house does not negate the disenfranchisement caused by the senate, it half-negates it which is far from justifiable. Consider simple mathematics and an example for a moment. California is more than 30 times the size of Wyoming in population. When it comes to the federal government, any individual in either of those states is represented twice by two equal halves, their senators and their congressman/woman. When it comes to the senate, a group of 1 million people are allowed as much power as a group of some 30 million, for absolutely no other reason than an arbitrary line on a map was drawn around them. This means that in the senate, someone from Wyoming has 30 times more power than does someone from California. But they are on par footing in the house, so surely this negates it? Certainly not, it means in sum, a person from Wyoming has a mere 15 to 1 advantage over their peer from California, being that on one half they are equal, 1 to 1, and on the other they are 30 to 1. No amount of disparity, if even "half-negated", should be considered justified or proper to a democracy. In closing, the senate is an institution that uses fractions to covertly disenfranchise people merely because they live between some lines with a lot of other people compared to another group. Giving someone 1/15th the voting power as one of their peers in a system designed to address and protect them equally on matters that effect them equally is an affront to both equality a democracy. Multiplying the amount of bodies in the government that differ only arbitrary names doesn't have any logical effect on the efficiency and reliability of the people tasked with representing a citizen in our government. As such, the senate as it is should be dissolved, with its worth-while powers and duties being appropriated by other bodies that can as easily perform them. Thank you to my opponent for engaging me, you actually came from an angle I wasn't expecting which is the best I could have hoped for. These sources may be a bit gratuitous, but for anyone who feels skeptical on my figures about the populations of Wyoming and California (the real ratio is actually a bit wider than the simplified figures I used): http://quickfacts.census.gov... http://quickfacts.census.gov...