DSA co-chairman defends proposal to abolish Senate: ‘We don’t think that’s extreme’
Ashik Siddiqu, co-chairman of the democratic Socialists of America (DSA), defended the organization’s proposal too abolish the U.S. Senate,citing it’s undemocratic nature due to equal depiction for all states irrespective of population. He argued that the Senate was originally designed to serve wealthy landowners and not the general populace. siddiqu emphasized that eliminating the Senate would make the federal government more representative and democratic, aligning with their platform of reforming institutional structures.
The DSA’s new platform calls for significant changes to the federal government, including replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with institutions controlled by Congress, and abolishing the Senate altogether. Siddiqu contends that the current structure, which gives small states the same voting power as larger states, undermines democratic principles. To achieve such reforms would require amending the Constitution, which involves a complex process requiring approval from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.If successful, congressional responsibilities currently held by the Senate would likely shift to the House of Representatives, resulting in a more majoritarian system.
Historically,the U.S. Constitution’s design aimed to prevent temporary majorities from overriding minority rights, establishing a system of checks and balances through separated powers. The Senate’s role as a stabilizing institution was intended to provide deliberate and informed governance,a vision supported by figures like James Madison.
These proposals and debates highlight ongoing tensions between democratic reform efforts and constitutional protections built into the American political system.
Democratic Socialists of America co-chairman Ashik Siddiqu defended the organization’s call to abolish the Senate, arguing the chamber is fundamentally undemocratic and that eliminating it would make the federal government more representative.
“The Senate is a very undemocratic institution,” Siddiqu said on a C-SPAN appearance. “I talked a bit about democracy, a ‘small d’ democracy, and that’s really important to us. We want democratic representation of all people who live in this country.”
Recommended Stories
“That’s part of our platform, and we don’t think that’s extreme,” he added. “We think it’s a change that would help make this country more democratic.”
Siddiqu’s comments came after the DSA unveiled a new national platform on Tuesday that calls for sweeping changes to the federal government, including abolishing the Senate and replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with “an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”
Siddiqu argued that the Senate’s equal representation for every state undermines democratic principles by giving voters in less populous states the same representation as those in much larger states.
“The Senate represents its two senators per state, and it’s very undemocratic at a basic level because a state with a small population gets the same representation as a state with 40 million people, like California, or New York, or Texas, or Florida,” Siddiqu said. “We believe government should be proportional to the population, and that’s a very basic core principle. The House of Representatives is more democratic in that way, and we just don’t see the point of the Senate.”
He also argued the chamber was originally designed to protect wealthy landowners rather than represent the public.
“Historically, it was meant to serve very wealthy people who owned a lot of land, and that’s still a system that we have today,” Siddiqu said. “It’s something we would change. We would expand what the House of Representatives does and make it more representative of the people who live in this country.”
Abolishing the Senate would require amending the Constitution. Under Article V, constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Article V also provides that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
If such an amendment were adopted, Congress would need to reassign the Senate’s constitutional responsibilities, including confirming executive and judicial nominees, ratifying treaties, conducting impeachment trials, and considering legislation, to another institution, most likely the House of Representatives, resulting in a substantially more majoritarian federal system.
The Constitution’s framers rejected a purely majoritarian form of government, arguing it could enable a temporary majority to override the rights of minorities or act against the broader public interest. Instead, they established a representative republic with separated powers and institutional checks designed to slow political change.
DSA’s new platform seeks to ‘replace’ presidency and Supreme Court, nix Electoral College
The Senate was intended to serve as one of those checks, representing states equally regardless of population and insulating lawmakers from sudden shifts in public opinion through staggered six-year terms. Alongside the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the chamber was designed to help prevent any single political majority from consolidating unchecked authority.
During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued “the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character,” would allow the Senate “to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
