Should state legislatures be unicameral?

[Cashew]

Like Nebraska?

We know the senate exists to give smaller states a bigger voice, but why do states need a senate?
Only one is needed.

[I’m not Stu]

Like Nebraska?

We know the senate exists to give smaller states a bigger voice, but why do states need a senate?
Only one is needed.

To give a bigger voice to less populated regions in a state. Let the States decide whether their legislatures are unicameral or not.

[MarkD]

Requiring legislation to move through two chambers and to be passed in identical form by both chambers helps to ensure that legislation is thoroughly vetted. Unicameral legislatures can act more quickly, which includes the error of acting hastily.
FYI, there was a time when most bicameral state legislatures were designed, by the state constitutions, to look very much like Congress -- one chamber represented the people proportionally and the other chamber did not. (It was not always the state "senate" which gave disproportionate representation to rural areas. In Missouri, the House of Reps gave the disproportionate weight to rural areas while the Senate represented the population proportionately.) It stayed that way, for most states, until the mid-1960s. Thanks to the SCOTUS's decisions in Baker v. Carr, 1962, and Reynolds v. Sims, 1964, all bicameral state legislatures were required to distribute representational power equally to all residents of the state in both chambers. "One man, one vote" (a misnomer), has been the requirement of both chambers for about the last 52 years.
It may seem as if once that was forced on the country by the SCOTUS (I agree with the Justices who dissented from Baker and Reynolds) then there is no point anymore in maintaining bicameral legislatures. I think that was when, and why, Nebraska changed to unicameral, although I'm not sure. But I still stand by my statement above: it is safer, for the sake of liberty, and for checks and balances, to make it difficult to pass legislation rather than easy to do so.

[Enduro]

That is completely up to the states.

[I’m not Stu]

My home state of California is so hard to govern because of its size and population. Would making it legislature unicameral do help or harm?

[Leinad]

Obviously individual states should decide, but my preference is two houses: one STV or PR, and one with IRV or FPTP districts. Or, one unicameral STV-based house.

Having two FPTP chambers is silly.

[politicallefty]

My home state of California is so hard to govern because of its size and population. Would making it legislature unicameral do help or harm?

I personally prefer a unicameral legislature and I do think that would work well for California. I'd go even further to say that Californians would be best served by having a unicameral parliamentary system. Yes, I do accept that that isn't what is best for all states, but I do think it would be best for a large state like California. Even if state voters are irrationally against having more state legislators, perhaps California could adopt a 120-member unicameral legislature (the exact number of the combined Assembly and Senate). It really is rather startling how few mention true structural reform to ensure responsive and effective government.

I really think it's disappointing as to the lack of diversity in state government among the states. Most states are just direct copies of the federal government, with maybe a few details being different here or there. It's amazing that only one state currently has a unicameral legislature.

[dead0man]

and for what's worth, we kind of like it.

[politicallefty]

and for what's worth, we kind of like it.

Most people tend not to put a lot of thought into process arguments such as these. People will accept what generally is and generally accept what is given to them, with some exceptions of course. The average voter probably has no idea what the difference between unicameral and bicameral is. In virtually any state, you could snap your fingers and make a state unicameral and the average person wouldn't know the difference except on having a more streamlined and effective legislature.

(Unfortunately, the people of Nebraska didn't share the viewpoint of Ernie Chambers' lifelong movement, despite a supermajority of the Nebraska Unicameral. )

[mencken]

Reynolds v. Sims ought to be overturned, with state Senate districts once again being tied to counties.

[MarkD]

Like I said above, I disagreed with Reynolds, and while I have wondered about the prospect of trying to adopt an amendment that would (among other things) overturn Reynolds, I worry a lot about whether there is now, or could there be with some effective persuasion, any popular support to overturning it.

[I’m not Stu]

and for what's worth, we kind of like it.

Most people tend not to put a lot of thought into process arguments such as these. People will accept what generally is and generally accept what is given to them, with some exceptions of course. The average voter probably has no idea what the difference between unicameral and bicameral is. In virtually any state, you could snap your fingers and make a state unicameral and the average person wouldn't know the difference except on having a more streamlined and effective legislature.

(Unfortunately, the people of Nebraska didn't share the viewpoint of Ernie Chambers' lifelong movement, despite a supermajority of the Nebraska Unicameral. )

District voting or proportional representation?

[Mr. Reactionary]

We know the senate exists to give smaller states a bigger an equal voice

Reynolds v. Sims ought to be overturned, with state Senate districts once again being tied to counties.

Agreed. Or at least reconfirm the State power to choose such a system.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Select upper houses by sortition.

[I’m not Stu]

What about a nonpartisan upper house with members who serve longer terms than the lower house in order to provide more careful scrutiny of legislation that is more independent and less partisan, where the upper house uses something other than FPTP? This would provide a check to lower houses with shorter terms. Is this a good idea or not?

[President Johnson]

No, strong checks and balances are useful. However, I'd prefer to have the senators elected by county (which was declared unconstitutional in 1964).

[LabourJersey]

Honestly the only check and balance that is absolutely necessary is an independent judicial system. After that, history has shown that they produce gridlock and kludges.

All legislatures should be unicameral, and also if PR is not a possibility than multi-member districts should be abolished too. In NJ everyone has 3 state legislators (1 Senator and 2 Assemblymen) which is not only unnecessary but confusing.

PR is valuable, but I personally think that if citizens had only one woman or man who represents them in the state capitol that they would have a more direct channel into state politics, while also giving state legislators the higher profile that they really deserve.

[I’m not Stu]

Honestly the only check and balance that is absolutely necessary is an independent judicial system. After that, history has shown that they produce gridlock and kludges.

All legislatures should be unicameral, and also if PR is not a possibility than multi-member districts should be abolished too. In NJ everyone has 3 state legislators (1 Senator and 2 Assemblymen) which is not only unnecessary but confusing.

PR is valuable, but I personally think that if citizens had only one woman or man who represents them in the state capitol that they would have a more direct channel into state politics, while also giving state legislators the higher profile that they really deserve.

Would it be good to make California's legislature unicameral?

[politicallefty]

District voting or proportional representation?[/quote]

I'm partial to something beyond simple FPTP. I like MMP the best overall, but IRV would be fine as well. However, that's a different subject beyond the basic structure of government.

No, strong checks and balances are useful. However, I'd prefer to have the senators elected by county (which was declared unconstitutional in 1964).

And people thought gerrymandering was bad? Rural interests above all else. A slight D-leaning state like Nevada would have a Republican Senate essentially etched in stone. Why should Loving County, TX with its total population of 82 get the same representation as Harris County and its population of over 4.5 million? I don't understand that logic except for partisan advantage.

Would it be good to make California's legislature unicameral?

I don't think bicameralism makes any sense at all in California. Personally, I would go one step further and make California a parliamentary system. As noted above, the only real necessary check and balance is a completely independent judiciary. I'd much rather have Jerry Brown as Premier of a unicameral legislature than the current system.

[I’m not Stu]

District voting or proportional representation?

I'm partial to something beyond simple FPTP. I like MMP the best overall, but IRV would be fine as well. However, that's a different subject beyond the basic structure of government.

No, strong checks and balances are useful. However, I'd prefer to have the senators elected by county (which was declared unconstitutional in 1964).

And people thought gerrymandering was bad? Rural interests above all else. A slight D-leaning state like Nevada would have a Republican Senate essentially etched in stone. Why should Loving County, TX with its total population of 82 get the same representation as Harris County and its population of over 4.5 million? I don't understand that logic except for partisan advantage.

Would it be good to make California's legislature unicameral?

I don't think bicameralism makes any sense at all in California. Personally, I would go one step further and make California a parliamentary system. As noted above, the only real necessary check and balance is a completely independent judiciary. I'd much rather have Jerry Brown as Premier of a unicameral legislature than the current system.
[/quote]I guess I will go with nonpartisan unicameral with IRV. I'm from a partisan Republican voting neighborhood in Northwestern Orange County and want to reduce partisanship.

[BuckeyeNut]

Reynolds v. Sims ought to be overturned, with state Senate districts once again being tied to counties.

This sounds like a terrible idea.

Less populated areas are already overrepresented. Why should someone in Cuyahoga County (pop. 1,280,122) have the same representation as someone in Athens (pop. 64,757)? The representative function of the State Senates is not the same as that of the US Senate.

[mencken]

Reynolds v. Sims ought to be overturned, with state Senate districts once again being tied to counties.

This sounds like a terrible idea.

Less populated areas are already overrepresented. Why should someone in Cuyahoga County (pop. 1,280,122) have the same representation as someone in Athens (pop. 64,757)? The representative function of the State Senates is not the same as that of the US Senate.

That is a bit of a tautological argument - of course state Senates do not have the same role for counties as the US Senate has for states, because the Supreme Court forbade such a thing!

[BuckeyeNut]

Reynolds v. Sims ought to be overturned, with state Senate districts once again being tied to counties.

This sounds like a terrible idea.

Less populated areas are already overrepresented. Why should someone in Cuyahoga County (pop. 1,280,122) have the same representation as someone in Athens (pop. 64,757)? The representative function of the State Senates is not the same as that of the US Senate.

That is a bit of a tautological argument - of course state Senates do not have the same role for counties as the US Senate has for states, because the Supreme Court forbade such a thing!

Upper houses are meant to focus concentrated power, nothing stipulates that should be done geographically. In some states, you'd actually wind up with Senates bigger than the House. Ignoring Constitutionality, municipalities provide much clearer communities of interest than counties, anyway.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Like Nebraska?

We know the senate exists to give smaller states a bigger voice, but why do states need a senate?
Only one is needed.

To give a bigger voice to less populated regions in a state. Let the States decide whether their legislatures are unicameral or not.

Why should less populated regions have a bigger voice?  Are people there more important than other people?

[AGA]

What if each county in a state has two senators?