So I agree with all of these, but someone has to ask so it'll be me:

Why abolish the senate? It was established to be opposite the house as a system where every state is represented equally. The concept of the senate guarantees a form of equality between Rhode Island and California, where in the house a vote that massively benefits California will inevitably drag lesser states with it by sheer population difference.

The reality is that the states are mostly independent entities with their own constitutions and governments. What's good for California may not be good for Rhode Island, and it's not very fair that you'd have to get the whole east coast on board to vote down an initiative championed by California alone.

I understand that the metaphor between California and Rhode Island isn't a perfect one, its sole purpose is to illustrate the point.

Although not as important as population representation, locational representation still makes a ton of sense for a country as geographically big as the united states.

A purely population based government without locational representation on a federal level would likely tip the power of law to the 5% of US land mass occupied by cities, and end up having the other 95% eventually forced to follow laws that don't make sense from a rural or suburban perspective.

So the senate does serve a purpose in that regard.

Now, on the other hand, I do think certain US territories should have seats in the house and senate.