The U.S. Senate Sucks, Why Does it Exist?
We need dramatic reforms to dismantle this tool of minority rule
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” So begins the most radical sentence in the most radical document in American history: the Declaration of Independence. Yet for all our supposed national reverence for equality and democracy, the very existence of the United States Senate openly defies those founding ideals. By any reasonable measure, it is the most undemocratic legislative body in the developed world.
Most Americans never stop to ask whether we should even have a Senate. Instead, they fall back on a deep-seated civic mythology—one that wrongly extols the virtues of deliberative institutions, checks and balances, and federalism. But here’s the truth: the Senate is an archaic holdover from a deal made to appease slaveholders. It was designed as a check on democracy, giving the aristocracy vast power. And even though we now elect senators, the institution has only grown less democratic over time. Most other advanced democracies have either eliminated their upper chambers or stripped them of real power. Yet ours still wields enormous authority—despite failing the most basic test of representative democracy: one person, one vote.
There are two main reasons the Senate persists. First, we’ve been taught never to question it. American K–12 education almost never includes classes on comparative government. Even most college students finish their degrees without ever learning how successful countries like Germany or Japan structure their parliaments. We assume our Constitution is the best in the world because that’s what we were taught. It isn’t. And the Senate is Exhibit A.
The second reason is more cynical: the Senate is an incredibly effective tool for the wealthy to block progressive reform. In a country where universal social programs are persistently popular—but also expensive—this matters. The Senate serves as a nearly impenetrable veto point against anything that might require raising taxes on the rich. Unless you're part of the one percent, the Senate probably isn’t serving your interests.
Built to Appease Slave States, Still Blocking Democracy
The Senate’s structure was born out of necessity—or rather, out of fear. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the small states, many of them slaveholding, demanded equal representation in at least one chamber of the new Congress. Without that concession, they threatened to walk. James Madison rightly opposed the demand, arguing for a fully proportional system. But he lost. The so-called “Great Compromise” gave us equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House. While it enabled the formation of a more energetic government—one better equipped to defend against foreign threats—the bargain has, over time, proved deeply damaging.
It was bad enough that the Framers surrendered the principle that all people should have equal political power. But they didn’t stop there—they also granted the Senate powers nearly equal to, and in some cases greater than, those of the House of Representatives. With the sole exception of initiating revenue bills, the Senate holds full co-equal legislative authority. It also confirms judges, ratifies treaties, and can obstruct any law passed by the House.
This isn’t just odd—it’s politically toxic. Nearly every democracy on Earth avoids giving equal power to unequal populations or maintaining two legislative chambers with largely overlapping authority. It made no sense then, and it makes even less now. Slavery is long gone. So why are we still beholden to a structure designed to protect it?
The Defenses Don't Hold Up
Senate defenders often fall back on lofty rhetoric. It’s the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” they claim. But when we actually look at its history, the record is spotty at best and disgraceful at worst. The so-called golden age of 19th-century oratory mostly produced compromises that preserved slavery. The League of Nations debate, often cited as an example of principled deliberation, ended in American isolationism and helped pave the way to World War II. And while the Senate eventually passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it did so only after a century of obstruction that upheld Jim Crow. That’s not a record of honor—it’s a trail of missed opportunities and moral cowardice.
Another argument is that the Senate protects minority rights. But what minorities are we talking about? The people most disadvantaged by Senate apportionment are racial, ethnic, and religious minorities—precisely because they tend to live in larger, more diverse states. In the ten smallest states, 81% of the population is white. In the five largest, just 53% is. The Senate doesn't protect minority rights; it entrenches white rural power.
Defenders also invoke federalism, where some powers are reserved for state governments. But there’s no reason a federal system requires equal state representation in the legislature. Many countries with federal systems—like Germany, Canada, and Australia—either use weighted or proportional representation in their upper chambers or limit those chambers’ powers. None give equal legislative power to wildly unequal populations, as the U.S. does. Ours is a global outlier—and not in a good way.
The Senate Hurts You More Than You Think
The Senate’s apportionment doesn’t just violate democratic ideals—it has concrete, harmful effects. First, it gives outsized influence to moneyed interests. It’s far cheaper for billionaires and PACs to buy influence in small states. A few million dollars can swing a race in North Dakota or West Virginia. In California or New York, it takes tens of millions. The result? A distorted national conversation, in which a minority coalition of financial elites and rural voters blocks legislation favored by the metropolitan majority.
Second, it warps how senators behave. Senators from small states represent fewer people, so they can afford to specialize in securing federal dollars through obscure committees. Senators from large states, by contrast, must chase media attention and high-profile legislation just to be visible to their sprawling constituencies. The net result? Small states get more per capita in nearly every category of domestic spending.
Third, and most damning, the numbers just don’t add up. As of 2020, 17% of the population could elect a Senate majority. That means 83% of Americans can be overruled. Four states—California, Texas, Florida, and New York—hold nearly 110 million people and send just 8 senators to Washington. Meanwhile, 62 senators represent the 31 smallest states, with fewer than 85 million people combined. That’s not democracy—it’s systemic disenfranchisement.
It’s Time to Democratize the Senate
The Senate should not be treated as a hallowed institution. It is a relic of compromise—designed to appease slaveholders, now hijacked by modern oligarchs. It violates every foundational principle of equal representation. It concentrates power in sparsely populated states and gives billionaires a cheap entry point into the legislative process. It distorts spending, weakens democracy, and blocks the adoption of popular policies supported by the majority of Americans.
And yet, most of us never question it. We’re taught not to. But if we want to reclaim our democracy—if we want a government that reflects the will of the people—we must start asking better questions. Why does the Senate exist? Who does it serve? And what would it take to build something better?
This post kicks off a multi-week series on the Senate. In the coming weeks, we’ll explore how it distorts everything from social insurance policy to judicial appointments—and why structural reform must become a top priority for democratic renewal in the 21st century.
COMING NEXT WEEK: I’ll explain why the Senate is actually unconstitutional—and push back on the claim that it can’t be reformed.