Why haven't any states gone the unicameral, parliamentary route?

[Blue3]

Why hasn't any state decided to go the parliamentary route? Especially with how weak some state governors are, being able to do little more than veto and appoint, why not just go full-blown parliamentary? Or have the state's general assembly nominate a Speaker/PM/Governor, who then gets confirmed on the ballot, but can still be recalled and replaced at any time by the general assembly?

[they don't love you like i love you]

One state is unicameral, Nebraska.

A parliamentary system doesn't work with the US's fixed election years, and while states don't have to use fixed election dates (as some do odd year elections) and set terms the idea is too ingrained into Americans' mindset. Plus most Americans aren't familiar with a non-directly elected head of government, even if it's not too dissimilar from the Speaker of the House.

[Mordecai]

Probably because unicameralism is a terrible idea, the legislature would be way too influenced by changes in public opinion.

One state is unicameral, Nebraska.

A parliamentary system doesn't work with the US's fixed election years, and while states don't have to use fixed election dates (as some do odd year elections) and set terms the idea is too ingrained into Americans' mindset. Plus most Americans aren't familiar with a non-directly elected head of government, even if it's not too dissimilar from the Speaker of the House.

Parliaments can have fixed terms, the Cameron-Clegg coalition government passed legislation three years ago to set a fixed date when the parliament would automatically dissolve, removing the Prime Minister's authority to decide when to call an election.

[politicus]

One state is unicameral, Nebraska.

A parliamentary system doesn't work with the US's fixed election years, and while states don't have to use fixed election dates (as some do odd year elections) and set terms the idea is too ingrained into Americans' mindset. Plus most Americans aren't familiar with a non-directly elected head of government, even if it's not too dissimilar from the Speaker of the House.

why wouldn't it? that's a pretty common combination.

[TNF]

Because literally no one cares about improving state government because said state governments are on the whole largely ignored by the media and are dominated by/selected by even fewer people than the federal government, perhaps. It's unfortunate that only one state has opted for unicameralism, hopefully that changes in the future.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The lack of institutional creativity displayed by Americans is truly one of their most depressing features. They got their nice little constitutional model and put it everywhere, without ever thinking about experimenting something new.

[they don't love you like i love you]

One state is unicameral, Nebraska.

A parliamentary system doesn't work with the US's fixed election years, and while states don't have to use fixed election dates (as some do odd year elections) and set terms the idea is too ingrained into Americans' mindset. Plus most Americans aren't familiar with a non-directly elected head of government, even if it's not too dissimilar from the Speaker of the House.

why wouldn't it? that's a pretty common combination.

Common? Maybe not unheard of but I definitely wouldn't say common. Though I'l admit it's more that I personally think it's a bad idea, though admittedly wouldn't be as bad in the US due to the two party system and it's unlikely even under this different states would develop Canadian style different systems for the state elections. However it would have other problems such as...

The lack of institutional creativity displayed by Americans is truly one of their most depressing features. They got their nice little constitutional model and put it everywhere, without ever thinking about experimenting something new.

No actually in this case it's a good thing due to gerrymandering. Do you really want to see the Ohio and Pennsylvania Republicans gerrymandering themselves not only a legislative majority but also the ability to choose the executive for the whole decade? At least now Corbett and Kasich can lose.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The constitution mandates only a republican system for state governments. We have a few unicameral legislatures, but it would be unconstitutional for a state to have a Prime Minister. I suppose the Speaker of a state legislature could be a de facto PM, of course.

[DC Al Fine]

The Westminster system would actually be a fairly radical reform. There are a lot of behind the scenes differences that would be harder to implement due to vested interests and whatnot.

There's probably some political self-interest at play here too. Canadian elections aren't exactly proportional, but they're much kinder to 3rd parties than the US system is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The constitution mandates only a republican system for state governments. We have a few unicameral legislatures, but it would be unconstitutional for a state to have a Prime Minister.

Because as we all know, only monarchies can have Prime Ministers, right?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The constitution mandates only a republican system for state governments. We have a few unicameral legislatures, but it would be unconstitutional for a state to have a Prime Minister.

Because as we all know, only monarchies can have Prime Ministers, right?

Ugh, yeah, I did know that. A Westminister system is not really a republican form of government in the sense that the legislature elects a Prime Minister from its ranks (though that is not always the case, like in France, for example).

Regardless of this side argument, the current system of state government is set in stone.

[ElectionsGuy]

Because we have separation of powers. Unless you're just talking about merging the two houses of the legislative branch (which is just fine, makes things less clogged up anyway), it wouldn't work under state constitutions. As Sanchez said, our system really isn't going to change anytime soon. With every passing moment it is increasingly unlikely (due to interest groups, polarization) that any change in the structure of government will occur.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A Westminister system is not really a republican form of government in the sense that the legislature elects a Prime Minister from its ranks.

How is that not republican? Indirect election of certain public officials by others has been present in many republican systems of government (including the US until 1913, lest we forget).

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

A Westminister system is not really a republican form of government in the sense that the legislature elects a Prime Minister from its ranks.

How is that not republican? Indirect election of certain public officials by others has been present in many republican systems of government (including the US until 1913, lest we forget).

I suppose it actually is a republican form of government, albeit it still requires the legislature to take a lot of executive power (unless Queen Elizabeth gets off her royal fanny and starts making policy decisions ) and implants it in itself. I wouldn’t call the pre-1913 Senate a fully republican institution either, though that wasn’t what the Senate was originally intended to be in the early days of our nation. It was to serve almost like a council of elders at a congregationist church, with a sort of veto power over both the House (there is a reason why the budget is required to start in the House) and the President (through the impeachment process).

State governments have the same basic design (I believe we have a few states with unicameral legislatures). It prevents state governors from usurping too much power and becoming virtual dictators of their own states. While I strongly believe in states’ rights, I also believe that it is dangerous for too much power to be invested in individual state executives.

[SteveRogers]

I don't think the republican guarantee clause would prohibit a state from adopting such a system (and even if it might, the Supreme Court almost certainly wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole).

That being said, a parliamentary system sort of goes against the idea of separation of powers which is pretty highly valued in American culture. Plus, a lot of our other institutions such as single-member districts, direct primaries, fixed terms, and a pure two-party system, while certainly compatible with a parliamentary system, tend to point the other direction. It's hard to see what the benefit would be at the state level. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The constitution mandates only a republican system for state governments. We have a few unicameral legislatures, but it would be unconstitutional for a state to have a Prime Minister.

Because as we all know, only monarchies can have Prime Ministers, right?

Ugh, yeah, I did know that. A Westminister system is not really a republican form of government in the sense that the legislature elects a Prime Minister from its ranks (though that is not always the case, like in France, for example).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Now while it may be inconceivable to you that a republic could exist that would not have a system of divided powers, that is not part of its definition.  Indeed, it would be in theory possible to have a republic in which one elected body, or even a single elected person would have the legislative, judicial, and executive powers combined.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, and for a number of years afterward, there were states that had the legislature elect the governor and there were some in which the legislature also had judicial powers beyond those of mere impeachment.

[politicallefty]

I don't think it's too surprising that bicameralism is commonplace among the states. Unicameralism is really the exception among modern democracies, though somewhat more common among subnational entities. In any event, unicameral legislatures as a whole have been a more recent development. Currently, all upper houses just represent larger districts than their lower house counterpart. Pryor to Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, representation in state legislatures was not subject to the "one man, one vote" principle. Many states had upper houses that represented counties (the California Senate was one such body). If anything, I think bicameralism in most states is just a holdover from the relatively recent past.

As for why states haven't adopted parliamentary systems, I have no idea. It's puzzling to me, as I think many states (especially those that are under one-party rule already) would function far better that way. For example, I think California would function far better under a parliamentary system. Separation of powers is vastly overrated at the state level. Some states have very weak governors, including some that require only a simple majority of the legislature to override a veto. That's not to mention when states like Massachusetts or Wyoming elect governors opposite their typical partisan leanings. That only gives the facade of checks and balances. Ultimately, it's the lopsided supermajority legislatures that are running things.

I would really like to see some states adopt parliamentary systems (let alone the US as a whole). I think it's a far superior system that provides for both accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the party in power holds full responsibility for the actions during its tenure. A parliamentary majority holds total responsibility for its actions and the opposition party is firmly established and ready to govern should the majority fail. The failure of the current system is that when one party is in power, the opposition is disordered and in disarray and always opposes. A parliamentary opposition has a face and can provide constructive opposition. As for divided government in our current system, both sides will essentially point the finger at the other side, which reduces accountability. Keep in mind that the crux of the parliamentary system is that the executive is ultimately accountable to the legislature. The executive must hold and maintain a majority in the legislature to keep power.

And, to add to the debate on republicanism, parliamentary republics exist in many countries. I'd note Israel as a unicameral and Italy as a bicameral parliamentary republic. Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled that that clause is a political question beyond the purview of the Court. Any state would be free to adopt a parliamentary system. Many parliamentary systems also maintain single-member districts with first-past-the-post, not to mention that fixed terms could easily be set in stone as well (with the exception of non-confidence votes). The two-party system could easily survive in a parliamentary system. However, if the two-party system fell apart and more parties appeared, I fail to see how that would be a bad thing.

[muon2]

I would really like to see some states adopt parliamentary systems (let alone the US as a whole). I think it's a far superior system that provides for both accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the party in power holds full responsibility for the actions during its tenure. A parliamentary majority holds total responsibility for its actions and the opposition party is firmly established and ready to govern should the majority fail. The failure of the current system is that when one party is in power, the opposition is disordered and in disarray and always opposes. A parliamentary opposition has a face and can provide constructive opposition. As for divided government in our current system, both sides will essentially point the finger at the other side, which reduces accountability. Keep in mind that the crux of the parliamentary system is that the executive is ultimately accountable to the legislature. The executive must hold and maintain a majority in the legislature to keep power.

I think this is why the US is not ready for a parliamentary system. A strong majority of the public is used to, and desires, two parties that generally cooperate to craft major public policy. Much of this is a holdover from before the last twenty years when partisan divisions greatly strengthened, especially in Congress. Even now it is really only the base of each party that prefers solutions that are crafted solely from one side of the aisle. Most of those who consider themselves independent tend to prefer one party but express a desire for bipartisan solutions. In a parliamentary system there is no expectation of bipartisan solutions (barring a grand coalition) and that just won't mesh with the US public.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

I would really like to see some states adopt parliamentary systems (let alone the US as a whole). I think it's a far superior system that provides for both accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the party in power holds full responsibility for the actions during its tenure. A parliamentary majority holds total responsibility for its actions and the opposition party is firmly established and ready to govern should the majority fail. The failure of the current system is that when one party is in power, the opposition is disordered and in disarray and always opposes. A parliamentary opposition has a face and can provide constructive opposition. As for divided government in our current system, both sides will essentially point the finger at the other side, which reduces accountability. Keep in mind that the crux of the parliamentary system is that the executive is ultimately accountable to the legislature. The executive must hold and maintain a majority in the legislature to keep power.

I think this is why the US is not ready for a parliamentary system. A strong majority of the public is used to, and desires, two parties that generally cooperate to craft major public policy. Much of this is a holdover from before the last twenty years when partisan divisions greatly strengthened, especially in Congress. Even now it is really only the base of each party that prefers solutions that are crafted solely from one side of the aisle. Most of those who consider themselves independent tend to prefer one party but express a desire for bipartisan solutions. In a parliamentary system there is no expectation of bipartisan solutions (barring a grand coalition) and that just won't mesh with the US public.

Do we really, though? Most Americans in theory want bipartisanship but when they actually get it hate it.

[muon2]

I would really like to see some states adopt parliamentary systems (let alone the US as a whole). I think it's a far superior system that provides for both accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the party in power holds full responsibility for the actions during its tenure. A parliamentary majority holds total responsibility for its actions and the opposition party is firmly established and ready to govern should the majority fail. The failure of the current system is that when one party is in power, the opposition is disordered and in disarray and always opposes. A parliamentary opposition has a face and can provide constructive opposition. As for divided government in our current system, both sides will essentially point the finger at the other side, which reduces accountability. Keep in mind that the crux of the parliamentary system is that the executive is ultimately accountable to the legislature. The executive must hold and maintain a majority in the legislature to keep power.

I think this is why the US is not ready for a parliamentary system. A strong majority of the public is used to, and desires, two parties that generally cooperate to craft major public policy. Much of this is a holdover from before the last twenty years when partisan divisions greatly strengthened, especially in Congress. Even now it is really only the base of each party that prefers solutions that are crafted solely from one side of the aisle. Most of those who consider themselves independent tend to prefer one party but express a desire for bipartisan solutions. In a parliamentary system there is no expectation of bipartisan solutions (barring a grand coalition) and that just won't mesh with the US public.

Do we really, though? Most Americans in theory want bipartisanship but when they actually get it hate it.

Most Americans over 30 except those in the partisan base do want and prefer bipartisan solutions. Most Americans are not in the partisan base, and I find they do like policies that are agreed to by most of both sides. Young Americans are less likely to expect that bipartisanship works, since they haven't seen as much of it in their adult life. For example, Clinton was adept at bipartisan solutions through his policy of triangulation and Reagan created bipartisan coalitions for all of his major policies.

[Mordecai]

I would really like to see some states adopt parliamentary systems (let alone the US as a whole). I think it's a far superior system that provides for both accountability and transparency. Ultimately, the party in power holds full responsibility for the actions during its tenure. A parliamentary majority holds total responsibility for its actions and the opposition party is firmly established and ready to govern should the majority fail. The failure of the current system is that when one party is in power, the opposition is disordered and in disarray and always opposes. A parliamentary opposition has a face and can provide constructive opposition. As for divided government in our current system, both sides will essentially point the finger at the other side, which reduces accountability. Keep in mind that the crux of the parliamentary system is that the executive is ultimately accountable to the legislature. The executive must hold and maintain a majority in the legislature to keep power.

Would you support having a Senate and a weak head of state? In Australia we have a single transferable vote and proportional representation system for Senate elections that allows third party and independent candidates to be more competitive. Often, third parties can hold more power as a minority swing vote on the cross-bench in the Senate than they otherwise would as part of the Government or Opposition.

We also had a referendum in 1999 for Australia to become a republic with the head of state, a President, being elected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament and basically taking on the responsibilities of the Governor-General, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

And, to add to the debate on republicanism, parliamentary republics exist in many countries. I'd note Israel as a unicameral and Italy as a bicameral parliamentary republic.

Not to mention Germany, South Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, all countries that the U.S. helped to become (democratic) republics and all of them adopted parliamentary systems.

[politicallefty]

Would you support having a Senate and a weak head of state? In Australia we have a single transferable vote and proportional representation system for Senate elections that allows third party and independent candidates to be more competitive. Often, third parties can hold more power as a minority swing vote on the cross-bench in the Senate than they otherwise would as part of the Government or Opposition.

Even I'd be nervous about concentrating the entire federal government into a unicameral legislature. I'd leave the Senate as it is and make the Head of State basically entirely ceremonial.

See my proposal in the "28th Amendment" topic:

Section 1. The executive Power shall be transferred from the President and vested in a Prime Minister of the United States, who shall be chosen by a majority vote of the whole membership of the House of Representatives upon its convention. The Prime Minister shall first choose a Cabinet, which shall be established by Law and subject to confirmation by the House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every fourth Year by the People of the several States, except upon a majority of Representatives having voted to declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If the House of Representatives has voted to declare non-confidence, the House of Representatives shall be dissolved and the Prime Minister shall order Writs of Election for all Representatives to occur no sooner than thirty days and no later than sixty days upon such declaration. The House of Representatives shall convene for its Term no later than thirty days upon its Election.

Section 3. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Representatives shall be prescribed by Congress.

Section 4. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall become Law.

Section 5. This amendment shall take effect upon the next Election of the House of Representatives occurring no sooner than ninety days after the date of ratification.

[Blue3]

Because we have separation of powers. Unless you're just talking about merging the two houses of the legislative branch (which is just fine, makes things less clogged up anyway), it wouldn't work under state constitutions. As Sanchez said, our system really isn't going to change anytime soon. With every passing moment it is increasingly unlikely (due to interest groups, polarization) that any change in the structure of government will occur.

Separation of powers at the state level is only in place because of current state constitutions, it's not a requirement.

[Blue3]

Any new thoughts on if state governments should go parliamentary?

[Lord Halifax]

One state is unicameral, Nebraska.

A parliamentary system doesn't work with the US's fixed election years, and while states don't have to use fixed election dates (as some do odd year elections) and set terms the idea is too ingrained into Americans' mindset. Plus most Americans aren't familiar with a non-directly elected head of government, even if it's not too dissimilar from the Speaker of the House.

Some countries with a parliamentary system have fixed terms, e.g. Norway, and they seem to do fine.