Any unicameral advocates in elected office?

[rob in cal]

As a big fan of a unicameral legislature  (partisan, not like the non-partisan body in Nebraska), I always take heart when various politicians such as former Governors Ventura, Pataki, and Engler come out in favor of their states having one.  Of late, I haven't heard about any top level politician proposing one in either their state on on the federal level (now there's a fantasy).  The voters of Alaska and Oklahoma approved referenda calling for them in the 20th century, but I think both were statutory, not constitutional amendments so the politicians refused to do away with the bicameral set-up.
     Cities used to be bicameral but now thats unheard of.  Too bad  there isn't some true maverick or change advocate out there who could champion this kind of reform which is hardly revolutionary, but would bring greater transparency and more accountability to government.

[Padfoot]

Having a unicameral legislature on the state level is probably not a bad idea.  Especially since the states are barred from mimicking the US Senate by "one man, one vote."  There really is no difference between a state senate and a state house except the number of constituents per legislator. 

[Smid]

Having a unicameral legislature on the state level is probably not a bad idea.  Especially since the states are barred from mimicking the US Senate by "one man, one vote."  There really is no difference between a state senate and a state house except the number of constituents per legislator. 

Unless you made it some form of PR (or PR within a number of "Regions" across a state). Then it might have a different composition to the Lower House. Over here, NSW and Victorian Parliaments offer comparisons of a PR across the whole state but with only half the positions elected at each election (NSW) and PR across regions (eight regions, with five elected in each) but with all positions vacant at each election (Victoria).

[rob in cal]

Here in California we have what I imagine are the worlds biggest State Senate districts, of about a million residents per district, which added to the term limit law makes for a lot of voter disconnect with legislators (the term limit law is three two year assembly terms, and two four year state senate terms).  I'd like to see a one house legislature of about 200 for California, preferably elected by PR.

[Lief 🗽]

Bicameralism in state legislatures is pretty useless, yeah. I think bicameralism at the national level should be preserved, though something should probably be done about Wyoming and California having the same amount of representation in the Senate.

[Nixon in '80]

Bicameralism in state legislatures is pretty useless, yeah. I think bicameralism at the national level should be preserved, though something should probably be done about Wyoming and California having the same amount of representation in the Senate.

It's always upset me that Wyoming has two Senators, while my Congressional district (CA-48) has about 100,000 more people.

In conclusion, CA-48 should get it's own Senators.

[Padfoot]

Bicameralism in state legislatures is pretty useless, yeah. I think bicameralism at the national level should be preserved, though something should probably be done about Wyoming and California having the same amount of representation in the Senate.

It's always upset me that Wyoming has two Senators, while my Congressional district (CA-48) has about 100,000 more people.

In conclusion, CA-48 should get it's own Senators.

You might as well start an Orange County statehood movement.  You'd probably have more success and its not really a half-bad idea.  After all, you would be the 30th most populous state in the country, right between Connecticut and Iowa.

[Nixon in '80]

Bicameralism in state legislatures is pretty useless, yeah. I think bicameralism at the national level should be preserved, though something should probably be done about Wyoming and California having the same amount of representation in the Senate.

It's always upset me that Wyoming has two Senators, while my Congressional district (CA-48) has about 100,000 more people.

In conclusion, CA-48 should get it's own Senators.

You might as well start an Orange County statehood movement.  You'd probably have more success and its not really a half-bad idea.  After all, you would be the 30th most populous state in the country, right between Connecticut and Iowa.

I was just being flip, but I think there's probably quite a few people around here who would love that... interesting stat, by the way.

[rob in cal]

 I remember that Georgia used to apportion legislative seats based on counties, so bigger counties started splitting in two to get more representation.  So Georgia has a lot of counties even today because of this.

[Bacon King]

I remember that Georgia used to apportion legislative seats based on counties, so bigger counties started splitting in two to get more representation.  So Georgia has a lot of counties even today because of this.

Yep, and there was also an EV-like system for the state Democratic primary, based on the counties.

Though that's not the only cause of Georgia's uniquely small counties.

[pragmatic liberal]

I think some kind of reconsideration of the Senate may well happen in a few decades. In 20 years, we could easily have a situation in which California has 100x as many people as Wyoming, but the same Senate representation.

Of course, amending the Senate would be *VERY* difficult. One change I've heard proposed is for each state to have 1 senator and for the other half of the Senate to be elected via proportional representation nationwide in a mixed-member system (like Germany's Bundestag). Each "state" senator would still represent the interests of the state government, but the rest would be national and would reflect the national electorate, not states.

As for the subject of this thread: I fully agree about unicameralism in states. It would definitely be an improvement in small and medium-sized states and it would probably make sense in large states too.

In large states, the only argument way bicameralism may be effective would be for, say, one house to be elected via proportional representation and one by first-past-the-post.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course, amending the Senate would be *VERY* difficult.

It's impossible.  Changing the composition of the Senate would require all 50 States to agree to it instead of the usual 38.  It would be far easier to weaken the powers of the Senate by a constitutional amendment that would strip the Senate of its role in passing certain types of legislation, such as appropriation bills.  A Senate that was focused more on its advice and consent role wouldn't be a bad thing.

[minionofmidas]

Of course, amending the Senate would be *VERY* difficult.

It's impossible.  Changing the composition of the Senate would require all 50 States to agree to it instead of the usual 38.  It would be far easier to weaken the powers of the Senate by a constitutional amendment that would strip the Senate of its role in passing certain types of legislation, such as appropriation bills.  A Senate that was focused more on its advice and consent role wouldn't be a bad thing.

What of a constitutional amendment that stripped Senators of all legislative role whatsoever, and of their pay (ie, abolished the Senate in all but name) - and created a new chamber with a similar name that was proportional and took over all the Senate's former roles? 50 states or 38?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can't see any amendment to change from a bicameral system passing.  Indeed, amendments to strip the Senate of any powers would be very problematic unless it could presented in the context of allowing each house to specialize more.  I'd say there's zero chance of an end around unless we had States that were more equal in size.  We currently have 14 States that have 3 Representatives or fewer and would thus have significantly less clout than they currently do if the Senate is stripped of power. I can't see any of those States approving any amendment to reduce the power of the Senate unless that were an effect but not the intent of the amendment.  Plus there are another 7 States with 4 or 5 Representatives that would see enough loss of clout that passage would be difficult.

Nor do I see any chance whatsoever for a push to proportional representation passing.  However, a quasi-proportional system is possible in the House without amending the Constitution.  The use of single-member districts is not constitutionally mandated, so changing the law to allow or even force States to use proportional voting on a Statewide basis would be legal.

EDIT: For hoots and giggles I went ahead and did a by State PR using the largest remainder method and the Presidential Vote.  That would for the 111th Congress have given a House with 233 Democrats 201 Republicans and 1 Peace and Freedomer (from California of course).

[pragmatic liberal]

I can't see any amendment to change from a bicameral system passing.  Indeed, amendments to strip the Senate of any powers would be very problematic unless it could presented in the context of allowing each house to specialize more.  I'd say there's zero chance of an end around unless we had States that were more equal in size.  We currently have 14 States that have 3 Representatives or fewer and would thus have significantly less clout than they currently do if the Senate is stripped of power. I can't see any of those States approving any amendment to reduce the power of the Senate unless that were an effect but not the intent of the amendment.  Plus there are another 7 States with 4 or 5 Representatives that would see enough loss of clout that passage would be difficult.

Nor do I see any chance whatsoever for a push to proportional representation passing.  However, a quasi-proportional system is possible in the House without amending the Constitution.  The use of single-member districts is not constitutionally mandated, so changing the law to allow or even force States to use proportional voting on a Statewide basis would be legal.

EDIT: For hoots and giggles I went ahead and did a by State PR using the largest remainder method and the Presidential Vote.  That would for the 111th Congress have given a House with 233 Democrats 201 Republicans and 1 Peace and Freedomer (from California of course).

Well the reason I suggested a mixed-member Senate is that this solution, because it keeps the number of senators from each state equal could theoretically permit a constitutional amendment, whereas changing the number of senators per state would require the consent of all 50 states.

That said, I agree the chances of it are extraordinarily slim.

Also, your PR calculations for the House are interesting - how'd you figure them? I'm surprised by those numbers - since Democrats won the House popular vote by, I believe, 8 points, I'd figure they'd have a larger majority.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For hoots and giggles I went ahead and did a by State PR using the largest remainder method and the Presidential Vote.  That would for the 111th Congress have given a House with 233 Democrats 201 Republicans and 1 Peace and Freedomer (from California of course).

Also, your PR calculations for the House are interesting - how'd you figure them? I'm surprised by those numbers - since Democrats won the House popular vote by, I believe, 8 points, I'd figure they'd have a larger majority.

I already said how I did it.  I used the Presidential vote rather than the House vote since there are a number of districts where there was only token opposition if any.  BTW, using the National Presidential vote and allocating vis the largest remainder method yields 230 Democrats, 199 Republicans, 2 Naderites, 2 Libertarians, 1 Constitution, and 1 Green, so the effect of using 50 constituencies instead of one big one was minimal as far as the big parties were concerned.

Doing that with the House vote yields (once one eliminates all votes for independents and write-ins for convenience's sake) 233 Democrats, 194 Republicans, 4 Libertarians, 2 Green, 1 Constitition, and 1 Independence using the largest remainder method.