A controversial New York Times op-ed has ignited fierce backlash after calling for the abolition of the Senate, the dismantling of the Electoral College, and the expansion of the Supreme Court.
At a Glance
- A New York Times op-ed proposed eliminating the Senate and Electoral College while expanding the Supreme Court
- The piece sparked outrage from conservatives, centrists, and constitutional scholars
- Critics argue the reforms would concentrate power and undermine federalism
- Historical attempts to enact similar reforms have repeatedly failed
- Legal experts note the amendment process makes such proposals nearly impossible to pass
Progressive Blueprint for Change
On August 14, 2025, The New York Times published an op-ed that thrust radical constitutional reform into mainstream debate. Written by progressive commentator Osita Nwanevu, alongside a response by conservative columnist Ross Douthat, the piece argued that America’s foundational institutions are structurally hostile to progressive policy. Nwanevu, drawing on arguments from his new book The Right of the People, urged abolishing the Senate, eliminating the Electoral College, and restructuring the Supreme Court.
The Times’ decision to feature these proposals quickly triggered widespread outrage. Critics across the political spectrum accused the op-ed of seeking to dismantle the republic’s safeguards in favor of unchecked majoritarian rule. Conservative commentators on social media warned that the ideas would strip small states of representation, allow large urban centers to dominate presidential elections, and politicize the judiciary beyond recognition.
Watch now: Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack … · YouTube
Opponents argue these proposals would destroy the delicate balance between majority rule and minority protections that has guided American governance since 1788. They contend that, far from democratizing the system, such changes would invite dangerous instability and place immense power in the hands of temporary political majorities.
Barriers as High as Ever
Calls to reform or abolish key institutions are not new. Since the 19th century, more than 700 attempts to reform the Electoral College have failed, despite widespread dissatisfaction with its outcomes. Efforts to alter the Senate’s equal representation of states have encountered even greater resistance, as the Constitution explicitly shields this feature from amendment without unanimous state consent.
Supreme Court reform has also faced fierce opposition historically. President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 “court-packing” plan collapsed under political and public pressure, demonstrating the limits of attempts to expand the judiciary for partisan advantage.
Legal scholars emphasize that achieving the reforms outlined in the op-ed would be virtually impossible under current rules. Amendments require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states—a threshold that modern polarization makes nearly unattainable. Any effort to bypass these hurdles would face accusations of illegitimacy and constitutional violation.
Media, Democracy, and the Constitution
The uproar surrounding the op-ed underscores broader concerns about the role of media in shaping political discourse. Critics accuse The New York Times of legitimizing fringe ideas that threaten to erode the foundations of American governance. Supporters argue that such debates reflect a growing dissatisfaction with what progressives view as “undemocratic” institutions that hinder the majority’s will.
At its core, the controversy reflects two competing visions of democracy. For progressives, abolishing or overhauling institutions like the Senate and Electoral College represents a path toward majority empowerment. For conservatives and constitutional traditionalists, those same institutions are essential safeguards against fleeting passions and concentrated power.
This clash is not simply about policy outcomes but about the very identity of the American system—whether it should remain bound by the guardrails set by the Founders, or evolve toward a model more directly driven by raw majority rule. As debate continues, the constitutional barriers remain, but the intensity of the dispute signals that arguments over America’s governing framework will not fade anytime soon.