Why are US state legislatures bicameral?

[Helsinkian]

Of the 50 state legislatures in the US, 49 are bicameral and only Nebraska's is unicameral.

The idea behind the two chambers of the federal Congress is, of course, to balance the need for representation of states (each state having equal representation in the Senate) and of the people at large with the "one person, one vote" principle (the number of representatives in the House depending on the state's population); thus the bicameral nature of Congress is easy to understand.

It is not the same with state legislatures, however. The existence of two chambers in the state legislatures only seems to bring expenditures and delays in legislating, with few benefits, as the state representatives and state senators are elected basically in a very similar manner.

My question is then: why haven't more states followed Nebraska's example and reformed their legislature into a unicameral body?

[Figueira]

I don't know, but bicameralism is fairly common worldwide, even in non-federal countries.

[RaphaelDLG]

The obsession with checks and balances.  Preserving the individual interests of the states wasn't the only reason for the creation of the US Senate.

[dead0man]

I've lived in both and prefer the unicameral, for whatever that's worth.  Just simpler all around.

[SteveRogers]

The obsession with checks and balances.  Preserving the individual interests of the states wasn't the only reason for the creation of the US Senate.

But what exactly is being checked and what is being balanced there? The will of the masses is being checked by the will of...slightly larger constituencies of the masses?

[muon2]

Many bicameral states started with different ways to elect the chambers. In some the Senate reflected the counties, much as the US Senate reflected the states. Since the one-man-one-vote decisions of teh 1960's, the state legislative chambers were forced to to be elected on equal population ending any distinctions in that regard.

[Blue3]

It's a rather pointless division.

[RaphaelDLG]

The obsession with checks and balances.  Preserving the individual interests of the states wasn't the only reason for the creation of the US Senate.

But what exactly is being checked and what is being balanced there? The will of the masses is being checked by the will of...slightly larger constituencies of the masses?

That's right.  And in most of them the terms are different - remember, the Senates usually serve longer than the Houses of Commons, to check the whims of the people.

Anyway, I hate bicameralism in all its forms, except maybe a House of Law Lords.  It's just another opportunity for gridlock - you already have a veto in a Presidential/gubernatorial system.

[Sir Mohamed]

Probably more checks and balances and therefore, in my opinion, a good thing. Upper houses were likely designed to represent the counties, until that was truck down in the 1960s (as already pointed out).

[Illiniwek]

Yeah I guess its pretty pointless.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Anyway, I hate bicameralism in all its forms, except maybe a House of Law Lords.  It's just another opportunity for gridlock - you already have a veto in a Presidential/gubernatorial system.

Gridlock is usually good thing, unless it is caused by some sort of supermajority requirement. Rarely is a governmental problem so pressing that it must be dealt with immediately, and it those cases, it will usually get dealt with in some fashion.

[RaphaelDLG]

Anyway, I hate bicameralism in all its forms, except maybe a House of Law Lords.  It's just another opportunity for gridlock - you already have a veto in a Presidential/gubernatorial system.

Gridlock is usually good thing, unless it is caused by some sort of supermajority requirement. Rarely is a governmental problem so pressing that it must be dealt with immediately, and it those cases, it will usually get dealt with in some fashion.

I respectfully disagree.  Though I agree that the supermajoritarian requirement in the senate is the biggest problem in federal politics, I also dislike the tendency of bicameralism to promote sharply divided government, which usually results in inaction in a two party system that is usually zero-sum.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Living in a system with really sharp bicameralism (24 seat upper house, and literally the third largest legislative body in the world for a lower house) I think the system works.

You stand a really good chance of personally knowing your state rep in NH. The ratio is something crazy like 1 legislator per roughly 3000 people. You get some crazies (Al Baldasaro being the most recent national embarrassment) but you also have people routinely spending less than $500 on their re-election, and quite a few citizen legislators.

The State Senate is really a group of professionals, and where 'real' politicians go. They determine a lot of the legislative agenda, and represent a decent sized number of people (roughly 50k).

Gridlock is a concern, but I think it's pretty strongly outweighed in this instance by a very pure form of representative democracy. I wouldn't want to give up either chamber.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Like most national upper houses, legacy and to provide more jobs for politicians.

[Badger]

Many bicameral states started with different ways to elect the chambers. In some the Senate reflected the counties, much as the US Senate reflected the states. Since the one-man-one-vote decisions of teh 1960's, the state legislative chambers were forced to to be elected on equal population ending any distinctions in that regard.

Good analysis, which tends to indicate statehouse bicameralism is an anachronism.

(Sorry if you were thinking about running for IL Senate, )

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like most national upper houses, legacy and to provide more jobs for politicians.

Here's the solution: abolish upper houses and double the size of lower houses.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Like most national upper houses, legacy and to provide more jobs for politicians.

Here's the solution: abolish upper houses and double the size of lower houses.

Why do you want to inflict 870 legislators on my state?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like most national upper houses, legacy and to provide more jobs for politicians.

Here's the solution: abolish upper houses and double the size of lower houses.

Why do you want to inflict 870 legislators on my state?

...OK, maybe make an exception for NH.

On the other hand, the California Assembly should be multiplied by at least 5.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Like most national upper houses, legacy and to provide more jobs for politicians.

Here's the solution: abolish upper houses and double the size of lower houses.

Why do you want to inflict 870 legislators on my state?

...OK, maybe make an exception for NH.

On the other hand, the California Assembly should be multiplied by at least 5.

Actually, California needs to be split into at least two states.  If it hadn't been for Taylor's heavy handed efforts to evade the slavery issue, California would have been admitted as a much smaller state covering only territory north of 36-30, and Yosemite might well be part of Nevada instead of California.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Like most national upper houses, legacy and to provide more jobs for politicians.

Here's the solution: abolish upper houses and double the size of lower houses.

Why do you want to inflict 870 legislators on my state?

...OK, maybe make an exception for NH.

On the other hand, the California Assembly should be multiplied by at least 5.

Actually, California needs to be split into at least two states.  If it hadn't been for Taylor's heavy handed efforts to evade the slavery issue, California would have been admitted as a much smaller state covering only territory north of 36-30, and Yosemite might well be part of Nevada instead of California.

Ideally yeah (as someone who's lived in both SF and LA, I dearly wish the latter would stop dominating the former politically!), but that's not gonna happen

[politicallefty]

Many bicameral states started with different ways to elect the chambers. In some the Senate reflected the counties, much as the US Senate reflected the states. Since the one-man-one-vote decisions of teh 1960's, the state legislative chambers were forced to to be elected on equal population ending any distinctions in that regard.

I've always wondered the same thing, and I think you were the one that mentioned the same back then. It's probably the explanation that makes the most sense.

I think the more interesting question is why no state has attempted to overhaul state government. Some of that, I'm sure, is due to the inertia against change and for incumbency. I do recall some states in recent years having proposals to go unicameral. I'd like to see a state adopt a more radical change (such as California) and go for a unicameral Parliamentary system. Considering the size of the seats in the State Senate in California, bicameralism is pretty ridiculous at this point.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

North Dakota voted on going unicameral in the 90s, it failed.

The reason why no one besides Nebraska has is obvious: No one wants to vote to eliminate their job.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

(as someone who's lived in both SF and LA, I dearly wish the latter would stop dominating the former politically!)

Aren't most of the prominent figures in statewide and federal California politics from the Bay Area these days, though?

[Blue3]

North Dakota voted on going unicameral in the 90s, it failed.

The reason why no one besides Nebraska has is obvious: No one wants to vote to eliminate their job.

Just double the size of the other house.

[Antonio the Sixth]

(as someone who's lived in both SF and LA, I dearly wish the latter would stop dominating the former politically!)

Aren't most of the prominent figures in statewide and federal California politics from the Bay Area these days, though?

True, and hopefully that will continue with Harris winning in November! I guess that the internal Democratic power base is definitely in the Bay Area, and with Democrats being increasingly dominant statewide this reflects into elected offices.

In terms of policies and political culture (especially the aspects of policy that are determined by, and the aspects of political culture that translate into, ballot measures) though, I think Southern Californian influence has been overwhelming.