middleagedgamer
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,363
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Think about it: Most state legislatures are bicameral simply because they are following the lead of the U.S. Constitution. Since the federal Constitution calls for a bicameral legislature, most states follow that example.
However, at the state level, is a bicameral legislature really needed?
It is needed at the federal level. When the Constitution was first written, most people considered themselves citizens of each state, rather than citizens of one, collective nation, so the Great Compromise was necessary to cater to that mindset. Even today, when that mindset is obsolete, keeping the Congressional districts within state borders is necessary, because election laws at the federal level are governed at the state level, so each state remains different, and, thus, the Great Compromise is still necessary, to keep any one state from having too much power.
But, those two issues that give rise to the necessity of a bicameral legislature are not present at the state level, so is a bicameral legislature really necessary?
Now, you might wonder, "Maybe it's not necessary, but what's the harm?" Well, try this, for starters: It's complex, it's expensive (because you need to pay for two chambers), and it slows down the legislative process. One bill takes more than twice as long to pass, all else being equal. It must pass both houses, but then, they have to pass another version, that is identical between both houses. This extra step is what cases bill passage to take more than twice as long.
So, if something is unnecessary, and, ultimately, does nothing but bog down the legislative process and raise taxpayer expense, then it poses a problem.
What are your thoughts?
However, at the state level, is a bicameral legislature really needed?
It is needed at the federal level. When the Constitution was first written, most people considered themselves citizens of each state, rather than citizens of one, collective nation, so the Great Compromise was necessary to cater to that mindset. Even today, when that mindset is obsolete, keeping the Congressional districts within state borders is necessary, because election laws at the federal level are governed at the state level, so each state remains different, and, thus, the Great Compromise is still necessary, to keep any one state from having too much power.
But, those two issues that give rise to the necessity of a bicameral legislature are not present at the state level, so is a bicameral legislature really necessary?
Now, you might wonder, "Maybe it's not necessary, but what's the harm?" Well, try this, for starters: It's complex, it's expensive (because you need to pay for two chambers), and it slows down the legislative process. One bill takes more than twice as long to pass, all else being equal. It must pass both houses, but then, they have to pass another version, that is identical between both houses. This extra step is what cases bill passage to take more than twice as long.
So, if something is unnecessary, and, ultimately, does nothing but bog down the legislative process and raise taxpayer expense, then it poses a problem.
What are your thoughts?