This article in Slate discusses abolition of the Senate:
“But even if the filibuster were scuttled, Geoghegan figures, 50 senators representing the 25 smallest states, and hence a mere 16 percent of the population, could still block passage of a bill favored by the other 84 percent of the population. (Assuming, of course, the tie-breaking vice president abstained or went along with the naysayers; with 50 senators, the vice president wouldn't be a factor.) Similarly, he points out, 51 senators representing "16 percent and a bit more" could pass any bill they wished, even if 84 percent of the population opposed it.”
Suppose the Senate were abolished and its functions transferred to the House. We would immediately save a bundle on salaries and expenses of 100 of the most self important men and women in the country. These luminaries could be released into the private sector or academia where their genius would benefit all mankind instead of being wasted in the stultifying institution of the Senate.
The Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative and dignified body, but I don’t reckon that it has shown itself to surpass the House in these characteristics. It is supposed by some to represent the sovereign states rather than the people, but the Senate has not demonstrated any commitment to state sovereignty to speak of in my lifetime.
I don’t see that we have anything to lose by getting rid of the Senate altogether. A bonus would be that the office of the Vice President would no longer have any function and could be done away with as well.