Unique state government

[fondue_knight]

As a Brit, it seems like most American state governments were created in a copy-and-paste process. They all have separation of powers, a two-party system with little third party representation and a state governor who mirrors the function of the national President. None have a parliamentary system of government.

Having said that, which state government do you find has the most unique set up? I'd be tempted to say Nebraska, with its unicameral legislature and non-partisan elections. Maybe Alaska too, which had (still has?) a Senate coalition between Democrats and Republicans, with the rest of the Republicans forming the minority.

What do you think?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Minnesota had non-partisan legislative elections until the early 1970s.

New Hampshire has an interesting electoral system in its state house.  I forget the name of the system... but you have multi-member districts.

3rd party candidates have had some success in New England and Minnesota and 3rd party movements have always been relatively popular here.

[fondue_knight]

I noticed the other day that some New England states have a handful of third party legislators at the state level. That's pretty cool.

I guess Minnesota is also unique for having the DFL party instead of a straight Democratic Party.

[greenforest32]

None of them are really interesting. The use of FPTP, bicameral legislatures, non-parliamentary systems, etc is pretty bad. Nebraska is unicameral but I guess it's no surprise they went with abolishing the lower house plus having their own state-level filibuster. How progressive and non-partisan!

I think one of the weird things is the six states that have an elected governor yet a simple majority override of said governor's veto in the legislature. Governor is kind of pointless there, should just go parliamentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#U.S._states.2C_veto_powers.2C_and_override_authority

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Imagine the names. The Prime Minister of Alabama! Indiana Prime Minister Mike Pence.

[fondue_knight]

I'm surprised some of them haven't gone parliamentary. I can see why the founders went presidential and with a strong bicameral system at the federal level, to create a slow legislative process to protect states' rights. But at a state level, I don't see the advantage in having such strong separation of powers.

[Lief 🗽]

Doesn't NH have some sort of executive council, in addition to the legislature and governor?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

New York has "alliances" in their elections, if I am not mistaken.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

South Carolina still has a fairly weak executive bu US standards, tho it's much stronger than it once was.  Still, the desire to keep the executive weak is one reason we have nine different statewide elected executive offices, including the only remaining elected adjutant general in the nation.

[The Free North]

New Hampshire ensures its citizens the 'right to revolution'


Pretty awesome

[traininthedistance]

Minnesota had non-partisan legislative elections until the early 1970s.

New Hampshire has an interesting electoral system in its state house.  I forget the name of the system... but you have multi-member districts.

3rd party candidates have had some success in New England and Minnesota and 3rd party movements have always been relatively popular here.

NJ has multi-member districts, as well; each legislative district elects one Senator and two Representatives.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Minnesota had non-partisan legislative elections until the early 1970s.

New Hampshire has an interesting electoral system in its state house.  I forget the name of the system... but you have multi-member districts.

3rd party candidates have had some success in New England and Minnesota and 3rd party movements have always been relatively popular here.

NJ has multi-member districts, as well; each legislative district elects one Senator and two Representatives.

We have a similar setup... except each senate district is divided into A and B... each half electing one house member. 

As for the Democratic parties being different in Minnesota... it's the same in North Dakota as well where the Democrats merged with the Non-Partisan League to become the Dem-NPL party.

The Democratic party in this region was basically a bastard 3rd party from 1860-1944 and the Farmer-Laborites were the 2nd party representing mostly radical socialist policies.  In the 1910s and 20s on federal elections you had a choice generally between a somewhat progressive Republican and a radical Farmer-Laborite with the Democrats competing mainly in St. Paul among the Irish there.

Hubert Humphrey's flavor of social progressiveness on civil rights forced the FL party and the Dems together.  Humphrey's 1948 convention speech was likely one of the first occasions where southern Democrats began to rebel.

I'm glad my state had a big part in ridding the Democratic party of conservative/reactionary southern whites.  We loved Jimmy Carter but not Strom Thurmond.

[Bacon King]

in Wisconsin you become governor not by election but by proving that you can balance a larger block of cheddar on your head than anyone else can; this is why we call them cheeseheads

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

in Wisconsin you become governor not by election but by proving that you can balance a larger block of cheddar on your head than anyone else can; this is why we call them cheeseheads

It would stink to use that system in Limburg.

[publicunofficial]

Minnesota had non-partisan legislative elections until the early 1970s.

New Hampshire has an interesting electoral system in its state house.  I forget the name of the system... but you have multi-member districts.

3rd party candidates have had some success in New England and Minnesota and 3rd party movements have always been relatively popular here.

NJ has multi-member districts, as well; each legislative district elects one Senator and two Representatives.

Washington (And Arizona IIRC) have the same system.

[Ban my account ffs!]

in Wisconsin you become governor not by election but by proving that you can balance a larger block of cheddar on your head than anyone else can; this is why we call them cheeseheads

It would stink to use that system in Limburg.

Ingredients:  Rye bread, limburger cheese, raw red onion... maybe some mustard.

And an Andes Mint for your breath afterwards.  Wisconsin at its best.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

California used to require a 2/3rds majority to pass a state budget. After enough blackmail just to pass a damn budget, the voters got rid of that idiocy.

[Adam Griffin]

Until the federal courts ruled in the early 1960s that state legislative redistricting had to be based on population rather than county, every county in Georgia was guaranteed at least one state house member. Additionally, each state senate district comprised three counties and each seat rotated between the three counties at the end of each term - effectively term-limiting all state senators. In effect, being in the state house was more desirable and proved to be more influential for many a Georgia politician.

Multi-member districts - alongside single-member districts - were utilized after the federal courts ruled against county-based redistricting, primarily as a way to dilute minority votes. This system was present from the early 1960s until the 1991 redistricting plan eliminated the concept. Governor Roy Barnes (the last Democratic Governor of Georgia) initially tried to bring back multi-member districts in the 2001 redistricting as a way to bolster the Democratic Party's rapidly weakening grip on complete control of the state. The plan effectively reduced minority representation; many black Democrats collaborated with Republicans to create an alternate plan. Neither of these maps ended up being the ultimate plan, however, and the one that passed was ultimately struck down by the courts a couple of years later. The overreach by Democrats effectively handed control of the General Assembly to the Republicans (and will be likely to continue through at least 2022), as the Republicans were in the majority when the 2001 maps were struck down and therefore got to draw them.

[muon2]

Until 1980 IL used 3-member house districts with modified cumulative voting. Voters could cast 1 vote for each of three candidates, 1 1/2 votes for each of two candidates or 3 votes for one candidate. The top three would be elected, so the strategy of the minority party in a district was to encourage "bullet" voting for a single candidate. It was eliminated in 1980 by a constitutional initiative led by Pat Quinn, driven by anger over legislative pay raises passed in 1978.

[fondue_knight]

I think I read somewhere that New Hampshire has the fourth largest legislature in the English speaking world (424 elected members) after the UK (1300+), the US (535), and India (God knows 790 Wikipedia knows).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's really weird about New Hampshire is the way it apportions its 400 member lower house.  They don't subdivide precincts, instead using not only multimember districts as needed, but also overlapping ones to secure equal representation.  For instance:  The town of Laconia elects four House members in the 3rd Belknap County district, The town of Belmont elects two members in the 6th district and the two towns jointly elect one member in the 9th district.  I suppose it works, but it definitely is weird.

[politicallefty]

This is something that's puzzled me as well. I don't know why more states haven't moved towards a unicameral legislature, especially considering the vast majority of state legislatures are under one-party rule. That doesn't even take into account the executive. Most states are under one-party rule overall, whether that includes one party controlling the entire state government or one party with a legislative supermajority. In those cases, especially, it seems like they would work far better under a parliamentary system. Personally, I like the efficiency and accountability that it could bring. I think the only reason things are as they are is because of habit. If a state were to draw up a completely new constitution from scratch, I couldn't imagine a reasonable proposal being a bicameral legislature with a separately-elected executive.

[Brittain33]

This is something that's puzzled me as well. I don't know why more states haven't moved towards a unicameral legislature, especially considering the vast majority of state legislatures are under one-party rule. That doesn't even take into account the executive. Most states are under one-party rule overall, whether that includes one party controlling the entire state government or one party with a legislative supermajority. In those cases, especially, it seems like they would work far better under a parliamentary system. Personally, I like the efficiency and accountability that it could bring. I think the only reason things are as they are is because of habit. If a state were to draw up a completely new constitution from scratch, I couldn't imagine a reasonable proposal being a bicameral legislature with a separately-elected executive.

Legislators aren't keen to put themselves out of a job or cut off career paths...

[politicallefty]

Legislators aren't keen to put themselves out of a job or cut off career paths...

That may be true, but it can easily be solved by having a larger unicameral legislature. I've heard of it being proposed in California at some time. Instead of a 40-member Senate and 80-member Assembly, there would instead be a 120-member unicameral legislature. As far as term limit states go, it'd work even better in California considering term limits already allow for 12 years total service in the Legislature regardless of the chamber.

[Foucaulf]

The lesson from this whole discussion (for the OP) is that state governments are fairly distinct. There is a struggle between the legislators and the executive in all forms of representative government. Whereas in a parliamentary system conflict resolution is flexible (motions of no confidence), in a separation of powers system both branches limit the other through dissolving executive power among many people, changing election rules and broadcasting referendums.

There's your explanation for why there hasn't been changes in the governing system; the checks and balances are written in regulation and not in custom. Just as parliamentary legislators can backstab their leader when most people don't want that, interest groups can abuse the diffusion of executive power to chain the state to their demands.

[fondue_knight]

I just read that Vermont requires a candidate to win 50%+ of the vote to be elected Governor. If that doesn't happen, a joint meeting of the state legislature elects a governor.