I want to replace my state's bicameral legislature. What kind would be best?

[I’m not Stu]

I want to get rid of the current bicameral legislature of my home state of California because I'm not satisfied with it. Which one of these legislature types would be best: partisan unicameral, nonpartisan unicameral, partisan tricameral, or nonpartisan tricameral? I would like you to participate in this poll.

[Cashew]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

[I’m not Stu]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

[Del Tachi]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

So literally just creating larger constituencies.

Typically in tricamerical systems the third house is elected through a different method than the other two houses, or the third house is comprised of members of the lower two houses selected by the executive/legislative leadership.

[I’m not Stu]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

So literally just creating larger constituencies.

Typically in tricamerical systems the third house is elected through a different method than the other two houses, or the third house is comprised of members of the lower two houses selected by the executive/legislative leadership.

Yes, just larger constituencies represented by regional representatives elected by the people. It isn't modeled after any specific system, it was just my idea. What advantages might this system have?

[Del Tachi]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

So literally just creating larger constituencies.

Typically in tricamerical systems the third house is elected through a different method than the other two houses, or the third house is comprised of members of the lower two houses selected by the executive/legislative leadership.

Yes, just larger constituencies represented by regional representatives elected by the people. It isn't modeled after any specific system, it was just my idea. What advantages might this system have?

None its redundant.

Bicameral state legislatures are dumb if both houses are elected FPTP, single district.  If you're going to create an upper-house then base it on the concept of "one-state, one-vote" or "one-county, one-vote".

[I’m not Stu]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

So literally just creating larger constituencies.

Typically in tricamerical systems the third house is elected through a different method than the other two houses, or the third house is comprised of members of the lower two houses selected by the executive/legislative leadership.

Yes, just larger constituencies represented by regional representatives elected by the people. It isn't modeled after any specific system, it was just my idea. What advantages might this system have?

None its redundant.

Bicameral state legislatures are dumb if both houses are elected FPTP, single district.  If you're going to create an upper-house then base it on the concept of "one-state, one-vote" or "one-county, one-vote".

California does not use FPTP, it uses a two round runoff; but my idea is to make all three houses use IRV. Is that a good idea? What about bicameral with IRV in both houses, is that better than unicameral?

[Del Tachi]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

So literally just creating larger constituencies.

Typically in tricamerical systems the third house is elected through a different method than the other two houses, or the third house is comprised of members of the lower two houses selected by the executive/legislative leadership.

Yes, just larger constituencies represented by regional representatives elected by the people. It isn't modeled after any specific system, it was just my idea. What advantages might this system have?

None its redundant.

Bicameral state legislatures are dumb if both houses are elected FPTP, single district.  If you're going to create an upper-house then base it on the concept of "one-state, one-vote" or "one-county, one-vote".

California does not use FPTP, it uses a two round runoff; but my idea is to make all three houses use IRV. Is that a good idea? What about bicameral with IRV in both houses, is that better than unicameral?

Question:  What is the point of a bicameral legislature?

Most would say its so that either house can provide a "check" on the other.  The fundamentally different natures of the U.S. House and Senate allow for each house to serve as an effective check on the other.  I fail to see the benefit of bicameral legislatures where both houses are operated almost identically except for the difference in constituency sizes.

[I’m not Stu]

Nonpartisan unicameral.

I am left wondering what the 3rd house you proposed would consist of however? Functional constituencies like in Hong Kong?

The lower house would be the Assembly, the middle house the Senate, and this third upper house would be regional districts larger than the Senate districts. The idea behind this is to balance the power between the legislature and governor in order to prevent controversial bills from being passed without the governor's approval. Each regional district in the third house would be apportioned according to "one person one vote". Members of the third house would be directly elected by the people.

So literally just creating larger constituencies.

Typically in tricamerical systems the third house is elected through a different method than the other two houses, or the third house is comprised of members of the lower two houses selected by the executive/legislative leadership.

Yes, just larger constituencies represented by regional representatives elected by the people. It isn't modeled after any specific system, it was just my idea. What advantages might this system have?

None its redundant.

Bicameral state legislatures are dumb if both houses are elected FPTP, single district.  If you're going to create an upper-house then base it on the concept of "one-state, one-vote" or "one-county, one-vote".

California does not use FPTP, it uses a two round runoff; but my idea is to make all three houses use IRV. Is that a good idea? What about bicameral with IRV in both houses, is that better than unicameral?

Question:  What is the point of a bicameral legislature?

Most would say its so that either house can provide a "check" on the other.  The fundamentally different natures of the U.S. House and Senate allow for each house to serve as an effective check on the other.  I fail to see the benefit of bicameral legislatures where both houses are operated almost identically except for the difference in constituency sizes.

Each chamber is different in terms, not just constituency size. The CA Assembly has a limit of six 2-year terms, the State Senate has a limit of three 4-year terms. One class of State Senators is elected in presidential years, with the other class being elected in midterms. Do you think a partisan or nonpartisan legislature is better?

[SteveRogers]

Each chamber is different in terms, not just constituency size. The CA Assembly has a limit of six 2-year terms, the State Senate has a limit of three 4-year terms. One class of State Senators is elected in presidential years, with the other class being elected in midterms. Do you think a partisan or nonpartisan legislature is better?

There's no such thing as a nonpartisan legislature. You can take the party labels off the ballots, but factions are inevitable in any legislative body in a representative democracy.

[I’m not Stu]

As opposed to six 2-year terms for assembly and 4 for state senate, why not three 6-year terms for the house of regional representatives (the third house, which is the upper house)? Regional representatives can serve longer than members of the other houses. This should serve as a check to the other houses. Is this a good idea?