It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
Unicameral vs. Bicameral Legislature
First commentator: “The ‘personalities’ of the House with its members always thinking of the next election and the Senate with its more secure members are very different.
“I like the inherent ‘radicality"’ of the House but I have come to appreciate the "wisdom" of the Senate. I think having legislation passed through both of these filters is probably a very good thing. I particularly appreciate them having to work together to get anything done! (The US Congress has forgotten about this part.)”
Second commentator: “Also, re: a unicamberal legislature, not sure i see the benefit. I thnk the brits got it right with an upper and lower house centuries ago, and i see no reason to become only the 2nd state to not adopt that very model.”
[Just wanted to start a different thread for what looked like another forum starting within the Term Limits discussion.]
There is at least one important difference between our federal congress and state legislature that may start the argument for unicameralism. Membership to the US Senate is based on the concept of equal representation among the 50 states, and so there are two senators representing each state. (This gives Hawaii equal representation in the Senate to say, California or Texas, regardless of population size.) The number of US Representative seats are determined by population, which makes them more sensitive, and hopefully responsive, to local interests.
However seats in both bodies of the Hawaii state legislature are determined by population and not geographic areas. I believe senatorial districts are approximately twice the population size of a house district. (Help! Clarification?)
Is representation different when the fundamental form and shape of it is different? Does this mean the two chambers serve duplicative efforts, especially when you consider the many other representative bodies out there are governed by a one-house system (i.e. our city council, education board, etc.)?
“I like the inherent ‘radicality"’ of the House but I have come to appreciate the "wisdom" of the Senate. I think having legislation passed through both of these filters is probably a very good thing. I particularly appreciate them having to work together to get anything done! (The US Congress has forgotten about this part.)”
Second commentator: “Also, re: a unicamberal legislature, not sure i see the benefit. I thnk the brits got it right with an upper and lower house centuries ago, and i see no reason to become only the 2nd state to not adopt that very model.”
[Just wanted to start a different thread for what looked like another forum starting within the Term Limits discussion.]
There is at least one important difference between our federal congress and state legislature that may start the argument for unicameralism. Membership to the US Senate is based on the concept of equal representation among the 50 states, and so there are two senators representing each state. (This gives Hawaii equal representation in the Senate to say, California or Texas, regardless of population size.) The number of US Representative seats are determined by population, which makes them more sensitive, and hopefully responsive, to local interests.
However seats in both bodies of the Hawaii state legislature are determined by population and not geographic areas. I believe senatorial districts are approximately twice the population size of a house district. (Help! Clarification?)
Is representation different when the fundamental form and shape of it is different? Does this mean the two chambers serve duplicative efforts, especially when you consider the many other representative bodies out there are governed by a one-house system (i.e. our city council, education board, etc.)?
Tags: bicameral, legislature, nebraska, non-partisan, population, representation, unicameral, unicameralism
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan L. on -
I think that we have bicameral legislatures in most states more out of tradition than anything else. The Brits did it to give presentation to both nobility and commoners without the two having to mingle. The U. S. Senate, as noted above, initially represented the states, not the people. (Until 1913, Senators were elected by state legislatures, not the public.) The U. S. constitution contemplated the possibility that states would have different qualifications for their two legislative bodies, but as far as I know no state has ever done that.
I believe that bicameralism today serves mostly to delay, obfuscate, and derail legislation. I'm open to persuasion on the issue, but the money and time saved by having only one legislative body seem pretty attractive.
-
Permalink Reply by bernafo on -
One more comment from the Term Limits discussion referencing unicameralism: "Any opinions on a unicameral legislature like Nebraska?"
Nebraska's legislature is the only unicameral state legislature in the US--t also has the distinction of being non-partisan. Check out Nebraska's unicameral legislature's website for more on the legislature's history, structure and processes (www.NebraskaLegislature.gov). They seem very proud of it.
I'm not sure a 1-house legislature is any less effective in passing thoughtful law than a 2-house legislature. Some believe 2 houses allow for more contemplative and deliberate decision making and a system for checks and balances, but I wonder if it makes it harder to hold individual politicians more accountable for their vote.
-
Permalink Reply by jk on -
I'm in favor of a unicameral legislature because there's too much unnecessary duplication with the current bicameral State legislature. Unicameral legislatures already exist in Hawaii and are working as well as the State legislature. They are the various city/county councils. Those who think that the bicameral legislature allows for more diversity and differences of opinion should consider a tri-cameral legislature, which would create even more diversity and differences of opinion. The third chamber would be composed of members from districts that are twice as large as current senatorial districts who serve 6 year terms. OK, it sounds ridiculous. But so does a bicameral city/county council. It's just a matter of what we've gotten accustomed to. Why not look at the records of the House and Senate, determine which one has come up with better legislation, then eliminate the other one?
© 2008 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create your own social network
