Arguments for and against bicameral state legislatures?

[Xeuma]

All states except for Nebraska have two chambers in their legislatures, the upper house being smaller than the lower house. In light of Reynolds v. Sims (requiring state senate districts to be apportioned to have roughly equal populations), what is the purpose of a state senate? In my personal view, state senates are an outdated body that no longer serve a purpose.

What are your views on state senates? Do they serve a meaningful purpose? Should / will the states abolish them?

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Unicameral, and abolish the whole system and start over with a Westminster/parliamentary-style governance, with Governors becoming like Premiers in Canada, with a system allowing for Instant Runoff Voting. The current system has too much obstacles to real progress.

[Xeuma]

I agree, but I think approval voting is superior to instant-runoff voting, just as a function of Bayesian regrets. The range voting website has a graphic demonstrating this, I can't link it though until I have 20 posts.

[Blue3]

All states except for Nebraska have two chambers in their legislatures, the upper house being smaller than the lower house. In light of Reynolds v. Sims (requiring state senate districts to be apportioned to have roughly equal populations), what is the purpose of a state senate? In my personal view, state senates are an outdated body that no longer serve a purpose.

What are your views on state senates? Do they serve a meaningful purpose? Should / will the states abolish them?

I agree.

And it would be nice for some states to experiment with parliamentary democracy too.

[Dr. MB]

I’m an opponent of the parliamentary system but I do strongly support unicameral legislatures.

[Santander]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricameral_Parliament

[Blue3]

What was the reasoning behind  Reynolds v. Sims, anyways? If it's democratic enough for the federal government, it seems weird that it would be unconstitutional for the state governments. I wonder if it will get overturned.

[Lechasseur]

I agree with the OP.

[Xeuma]

What was the reasoning behind  Reynolds v. Sims, anyways? If it's democratic enough for the federal government, it seems weird that it would be unconstitutional for the state governments. I wonder if it will get overturned.

The problem is that the federal government is extremely undemocratic.

[Indy Texas]

What was the reasoning behind  Reynolds v. Sims, anyways? If it's democratic enough for the federal government, it seems weird that it would be unconstitutional for the state governments. I wonder if it will get overturned.

I think it's because the United States is meant to be a union of states, with the Senate being where they are all represented as equals. Whereas states are not a union of counties; in fact, counties themselves only exist at the pleasure of the state governments that authorize their creation.

[Indy Texas]

As far as state senates go, I would either abolish that chamber altogether or make it into a proportional representation body with members chosen from party lists based on the statewide popular vote.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

The good part is it makes laws harder to pass.

[RFayette]

The good part is it makes laws harder to pass.

[136or142]

When Jessie Ventura was Governor of Minnesota and before he became a semi loony conspiracy theorist he argued that the bicameral legislature allowed both houses to pass the blame to each other.

There is actually a news story on this available on the internet (and it goes back to 1999.)

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/us/political-briefing-ventura-s-mission-turning-two-into-one.html

As Mr. Ventura sees things, the bicameral, or two-house, system of legislating is gummed up with partisan bickering and, worst of all, allows legislators to duck accountability by saying that shortcomings were caused by members of the other house. He wants the current two-house Legislature in Minnesota to authorize a statewide vote next year on whether to rewrite the state's Constitution and shift to a unicameral system.

[Indy Texas]

The good part is it makes laws harder to pass.

Indeed. Our bicameral federal legislature is the reason the Affordable Care Act is still with us!

[muon2]

When Jessie Ventura was Governor of Minnesota and before he became a semi loony conspiracy theorist he argued that the bicameral legislature allowed both houses to pass the blame to each other.

There is actually a news story on this available on the internet (and it goes back to 1999.)

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/us/political-briefing-ventura-s-mission-turning-two-into-one.html

As Mr. Ventura sees things, the bicameral, or two-house, system of legislating is gummed up with partisan bickering and, worst of all, allows legislators to duck accountability by saying that shortcomings were caused by members of the other house. He wants the current two-house Legislature in Minnesota to authorize a statewide vote next year on whether to rewrite the state's Constitution and shift to a unicameral system.

I can confirm that this happens frequently in IL even with one-party control. Popular ideas that are not favored by leadership are passed separately in each chamber but neither version gets a vote in both chambers. The members all say they passed it but the other chamber blocked it. Sometimes the leaders let the chambers take turns calling the measure for a vote in alternate years. I'd say it happens with a few issues each year.

[politicallefty]

I think it's disappointing that 49 states just choose to emulate the federal government (albeit with more constitutional restrictions and occasional particularities). I prefer a unicameral legislature myself, but that doesn't mean it has to be used everywhere. Personally, I think California would work far better under a unicameral parliamentary system. That doesn't mean all states should adopt such a system. But it would be far better, I think, if states were to really look and evaluate the structure of government itself.

The biggest problem with bicameral separation of powers is that there's a diffusion of responsibility which leads to a reduction in accountability. Unicameralism, particularly in a parliamentary system, has far greater accountability.

[Hatman 🍁]

Having two chambers allows each one to be elected differently. One chamber can represent individual constituencies while the other can represent the entire state or a larger region. One can be elected using FPTP/IVR and the other with PR or STV. 

[Blue3]

Having two chambers allows each one to be elected differently. One chamber can represent individual constituencies while the other can represent the entire state or a larger region. One can be elected using FPTP/IVR and the other with PR or STV. 

But didn't SCOTUS say that was unconstitutional?

[politicallefty]

Having two chambers allows each one to be elected differently. One chamber can represent individual constituencies while the other can represent the entire state or a larger region. One can be elected using FPTP/IVR and the other with PR or STV. 

But didn't SCOTUS say that was unconstitutional?

No, that's permissible under current jurisprudence. Reynolds v. Sims only requires that state legislatures maintain the "one man, one vote" principle. That can be achieved through other means so long as the constituency size for all voters is the same.