Should state legislatures be unicameral?

[middleagedgamer]

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 Even today, when that mindset is obsolete, keeping the Congressional districts within state borders is necessary, because election laws at the federal level are governed at the state level, so each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?

 

[Chappy]

Personally I don't think we need a bicameral legislature at the national let alone at the state level.

 

[rathi]

I actually agree on this point. In most states, having two legislative bodies both based on population is redundant and wasteful. There is little point in having a bicameral system unless each house is distinct in how it provides representation. Actually implementing such a system in pretty much impossible as no group of politicians would vote themselves out of a job.

 

[samsmart]

All state legislatures should be unicameral. On a federal level, it should stay bicameral.

 

[molten_dragon]

I really don't see much of a point in them being bicameral.

 

[American]

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?

That "mindset" is only considered obsolete by radical leftwingers who want a socialist utopia. The primary benefit of the bicameral system is to slow the legislative process, which should be going slower than it is now. We pass too many freaking laws as it is.

 

[American]

I really don't see much of a point in them being bicameral.

Do you a considered reason, or is this a willynilly opinion?

 

[American]

Personally I don't think we need a bicameral legislature at the national let alone at the state level.

Yeah, right? We don't even need a Congress, just a socialist dictator with a list of leftwing wishes.

 

[samsmart]

That "mindset" is only considered obsolete by radical leftwingers who want a socialist utopia. The primary benefit of the bicameral system is to slow the legislative process, which should be going slower than it is now. We pass too many freaking laws as it is.

But you neglect to consider two things:

1) We have to have increased taxes to pay for a bicameral legislature.
2) A bicameral legislature also makes it more difficult to repeal crappy laws and reduce legislation after it's been passed.

 

[rathi]

That "mindset" is only considered obsolete by radical leftwingers who want a socialist utopia. The primary benefit of the bicameral system is to slow the legislative process, which should be going slower than it is now. We pass too many freaking laws as it is.

So wanting to cut waste in the government is now the platform of radical leftwingers?

 

[Goshin]

... 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?

The bolded items are, IMHO, good things. Legislation needs to be slowed down. Laws affecting millions should not be passed in haste, or with ease.

 

[Cavil]

The purpose of the bicameral legislature was to make sure the states had an equal vote to the people. The constitution has since been perverted by an amendment that directly undercut this, the 17th, which ought be repealed.

At a state level there is no need for a bicameral legislature, unless one was based off of counties and the counties chose the best people to send (not through direct election) and the other house was based off of democracy.

A Republic has no dominant factor. We are not a republic, we are democracy, which is the will of the majority. A Republic is rule of law, a democracy is rule of 50%+1 over the other 50%-1. The House is where crazy populists can be like Michelle Bachmann, running her mouth about anything, but the Senate is supposed to be a meritocracy where the best for each state is given. This is supposed to create gridlock within the legislative branch itself. The government that governs least governs best.

I will say the OP is wrong to suggest it should be unicameral so things run smoother though. That's a terrible reason. Government moves far too fast and does far too much already. A change so that it is more in line with what the Constitution gave the Federal government initially, where democracy was in one house and a meritocracy in the other, is preferable. These would be in conflict which each other and that is a very good thing.

 

[American]

But you neglect to consider two things:

1) We have to have increased taxes to pay for a bicameral legislature.
2) A bicameral legislature also makes it more difficult to repeal crappy laws and reduce legislation after it's been passed.

Really, and you base #1 on what? How many laws has anyone tried to repeal? :lamo

 

[Cavil]

laws get repealed and modified all the time. there are thousands of changes to the statues in singular jurisdictions, every year.

 

[jamesrage]

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?

You say that like its a bad thing. I agree with American and Goshin on this. Slower is better.


If I had it my way politicians would have to read out loud every bill they write and or amend and they would have to read out loud every bill they plan on voting yes for as well as post it online for a minimum of 72 hours for a hundred page bill so that constituents will have time to review it and contact their elected officials to vote yes or no for the bill.

 

[samsmart]

You know, I would be willing to do a compromise - state legislatures are unicameral but they can only pass bills with a 3/5 majority. That would take away the problems of a bicameral legislature while giving a good slowdown to passing bills.

 

[jamesrage]

You know, I would be willing to do a compromise - state legislatures are unicameral but they can only pass bills with a 3/5 majority. That would take away the problems of a bicameral legislature while giving a good slowdown to passing bills.

60% hardly sounds too difficult.

 

[American]

60% hardly sounds too difficult.

That's cause libs like legislation to pass quickly, kind of like Stalin would have done.