Neither House nor Senate is partisan or non partisan
You need the filibuster in the Senate. The house is partisan by design. The senate is supposed to be a check on that. You can't have the senate passing legislation on a 51 vote majority. If that's the case, you'll just see a cycle of new legislation intended to undo prior legislation. Requiring 60 votes requires bipartisanship, which is sorely needed in the senate. Liberals crying about nuking the filibuster are the same ones who used it hundreds of times under Trump.
Term limits, on the other hand, would be a nice thing to introduce.
House allocates power by population (tbh we need to increase from 435 - it has been set this way for far too long now and reps now have a historically high number of represented constituents allowing the polar extremes to get more attention than they deserve, but I digress). Senate allocates powers to the state simply by their existence as a state no matter how large or populated. It inherently allows small states, regardless of their ideology, the same amount of power and influence as larger states. If Vermont wants to support communist leaning policies, sorry, they'll get to influence the Senate same as Texas. Partisanship plays no part in that design since it would have been impossible to predict how Texas and Vermont wanted to govern when the Constitution was ratified.
I get the premise behind the 60 threshold to promote bipartisanship. It makes sense in theory but I have 3 problems with it. 1) it is used for obstructionism, not compromise in practice (also in appointment confirmation) 2) it amplifies an existing advantage by pure Senate design for the reasons stated above, and 3) if the founders intended there to be anything other than a 51 vote threshold, why did they grant the VP the tie break. Ties only exist at 50:50 with 100 senators.
Undoing of prior admins legislation is more than fine with me and would be a shorter term frustration. Legislation was never meant to be permanent anyhow. If we continue the 50:50 electorate split we see these days and go back and forth back and forth so be ii, but I feel it more realistic that actual partisan policy being passed will result in one party overtaking the other due to actual results from those passed policies. Put the talking points into practice let the chips fall as they may in that case.
