The senate is for the states. If we changed it, some states will have less say. It's also a problem since for example in the west the vast majority of the land is federally owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_...

How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance.

Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend.

The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally.

It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.

I think it would be even better if in order for bills to pass, a majority of the House must pass and a majority of States, via both Senators from a given State, must pass the bill too.

We shouldn't talk about Senator John For voted for or against bill Y, but rather California voted for or against bill Y. The individuals ought not matter except to their State's governments/legislatures.