Nope, wrong on several levels. First, "democracy" means rule by the PEOPLE making the decisions that govern them, in a republic that is through representatives. For the people to make decisions democratically, each must have an equal vote. The idea of "one person one vote" is universal in America, but that is violated with the Senate (and with the EC). If you want to talk about sovereignty, the sovereignty of the people putatively reigns supreme in a democracy. But with the Senate, that is violated. People in small rural states have much more voice than those in more populated states, and that is patently unfair.
Second, the concept of the Senate was not some moral idea about voters in small states having EQUAL voice, it was to give rural voters an outsized voice. It is telling that the author cites the House of Lords as a comparable institution. This institution was originally composed of the nobility - archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons. They were appointed, not elected, and they still are appointed today. The US was founded largely on the idea of REJECTING inherited wealth or positions of authority. And in contrast to the US, the House of Lords has LOST power over time, and cannot block legislation by the House of Commons, as can the US Senate.
More important, the House of Lords is intended to protect property. Same with the US Senate - the Senate was a compromise that was necessary to get the southern agricultural states to join. The Senate, as most of the Constitution, was designed to protect property rights over human rights. At the time property wealth in the US was primarily in the form of land and slaves. The Southern states considered the Senate compromise as their protection from legislation to end slavery. And as we have seen over the last few decades, it continues to behave similarly today.
If the Senate had separate powers from the House it might be a different situation. If they were limited, for example, to modifying legislation to guarantee that individual rights are not violated by the House - protecting against a "tyranny of the majority" - that would be one thing. But they have equal voting power with the House, vote on all legislation, and propose legislation on its own. Generally the Senate today functions to block legislation passed by the House. If the two bodies are controlled by different parties, the Senate basically shuts down the legislative process. The author thinks this is good. But I do not, and the total dysfunction of our government to solve problems facing the American people is mostly the fault of the Senate.
We don't need a Senate. We don't even need a Constitution. What we need is guaranteed equal representation for all US citizens. What we need is a reboot of democracy, which is dying in the US. Getting rid of the Senate, the EC, the 2nd amendment, and strengthening protections against corruption and tyranny would make the Constitution a valuable document again. Otherwise the Constitution is a hindrance to democracy.
Finally, the appropriate word is "secession", not "succession". If we Western states could succeed at seceding, I wouldn't care what you do with the Senate.
