A provocative New York Times op-ed reignited an old but volatile debate: Should the U.S. abolish the Senate, end the Electoral College, and expand (pack) the Supreme Court? The piece argues that these institutions entrench minority power and block popular majorities—an assessment that drew instant backlash from conservatives, centrists, and many constitutional scholars.
What the op-ed actually proposes
Eliminate the Senate: Replace it with a more majoritarian chamber (or fundamentally weaken its veto power).
Scrap the Electoral College: Elect presidents by a national popular vote.
Expand the Supreme Court: Add justices to rebalance the court’s ideological tilt.
The argument: these reforms would align policy outcomes more closely with national majorities. The counterargument: they would concentrate power, undermine federalism, and destabilize long-standing checks and balances.
Why critics say this is a dangerous path
Opponents warn that dismantling the Senate and Electoral College would strip smaller states of meaningful representation and let a handful of populous metros dominate national politics. Expanding the Court for immediate political ends, critics add, risks turning the judiciary into a revolving partisan weapon. In short, they see the plan as trading stability for short-term wins, with high risk of long-term whiplash.
The (very) high bar to change the Constitution
Even if voters supported such changes, the amendment process is designed to be hard: two-thirds of both chambers of Congress plus three-quarters of state legislatures must approve. Reforming the Senate’s equal representation is even tougher—the Constitution shields that feature unless every state agrees. Historically, hundreds of attempts to overhaul the Electoral College have failed, and FDR’s famous 1937 court-expansion plan collapsed under political pressure. In today’s polarized environment, those hurdles are steeper than ever.
What this fight is really about
Beneath the proposals is a clash of visions:
One side sees the current system as structurally unfair, blocking majority rule and stymying policy on issues voters say they want.
The other sees these “counter-majoritarian” guardrails as essential safeguards—protecting regional diversity, slowing fads, and forcing compromise.
That tension isn’t new; it’s baked into American governance. What is new is how openly some argue for rewriting the system, and how quickly the backlash mobilizes when they do.
https://x.com/OsitaNwanevu/status/1955984011047633223
Bottom line
The op-ed tapped into a real frustration with gridlock, but abolishing the Senate, ending the Electoral College, and packing the Court remain politically improbable—and, to many, norm-shattering. Expect the debate to flare during elections, but any actual constitutional change will require broad, cross-partisan consensus that doesn’t exist today.
