# A one-house legislature is better than a two-house legislature **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862 "2012-01-08T23:01:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/41 "2012-01-09T14:59:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > From the OP: Yes, yes. But I am arguing that it is a bug, not a feature. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/42 "2012-01-09T15:00:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, yes. But I am arguing that it is a bug, not a feature. No, you’re actually just stating it is a bug and not a feature. I haven’t seen you make any serious argument to support that assertion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/43 "2012-01-09T15:04:29Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, yes. But I am arguing that it is a bug, not a feature. You are taking that as a premise because you think there is [almost] never too much government. Many people don’t share that premise. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/44 "2012-01-09T15:08:03Z")
Certainly it’s a good thing for interests, whether popular or not, to be heard in the legislature. And when an issue is more important to a group you expect more interest in it. But it’s not good for the system to be biased so heavily in favor of those who can throw money at it on a permanent basis. For the specific example, if the goal of the UAW doesn’t conflict with the public interest and is in accord with the prevailing ideology of the legislature and it doesn’t come at a bad time then you would expect them to get their way. As it should be, IMO. If you oppose union initiatives or automotive initiatives or whatever, you should try to elect legislators who share your point of view. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/45 "2012-01-09T15:09:53Z")
Am I missing something on the Bug vs Feature thing? I mean, just cause it’s a bug doesn’t mean it’s bad, right? And just cause it’s a feature doesn’t mean it’s good. At least that’s how I read it. Bugs are unintentional. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/46 "2012-01-09T15:30:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You are taking that as a premise because you think there is [almost] never too much government. Many people don’t share that premise. 😕 Unicameralism vs. bicameralism will not make a difference in more vs. less government; does Nebraska have too much? It will make a difference in the **balance of power between the branches.** ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/47 "2012-01-09T15:32:01Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, you’re actually just stating it is a bug and not a feature. I haven’t seen you make any serious argument to support that assertion. I made a serious argument **in the OP.** And restated it several times. And I have yet to see anyone in this thread address it. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/48 "2012-01-09T15:34:43Z")
Time fort some history. Many colonies had very basic congresses of their own, as unicameral bodies. So the argument that they were just aping the U. S. national model falls flat. They knew what they had and actively chose something else. John Adams developed it and in effect designed American government almost single-handedly. The model was tested before it was put into practice, parts of it in several colonies and later states, and almost everything in Massachusetts. It then became in effect the design for the U. S. Constitution (Adams was away making history as our first ambassador to England). The popular story is that the bicameral legislature was a response to the division of large and small states. That may have played a role, but it was already present in the model of government they based the Consitution upon. And note that voting was limited to landowners at the time, so that it wasn’t intended to protect from mob-rule or balance big against small counties. **BG** , haven’t once seriously considered why it is the way it is. Instead you blindly asserted something at best incomplete and at worst absurd, have been called on it more than once, and thus far refuse to make any kind of coherent argument. As much as oppose your politics, you’re better than this. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/49 "2012-01-09T15:55:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I made a serious argument **in the OP.** > > And restated it several times. > > And I have yet to see anyone in this thread address it. But the basic premise of your arguement was questioned several times, my post #32 as just one example. Your whole idea that the split legislature was to weaken that branch is wrong so all of your other arguements fall like dominos. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/50 "2012-01-09T16:00:26Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > The OP premise seems flawed to me. Bicameral’s purpose isn’t to weaken the legislature relative to the other branch. Then what – **separated from the “Great Compromise”** – is its actual purpose? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/51 "2012-01-09T16:11:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then what – **separated from the “Great Compromise”** – is its actual purpose? BG, may I suggest that if you don’t know, it’s because you didn’t ask. Perhaps educating yourself would be helpful before you go about asking others? It would take you all of twenty minutes. My post alone should point you in the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/52 "2012-01-09T16:15:52Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > Just to chime in from the Cornhusker state: In my 37 years living in Nebraska, I have heard exactly two people say our state should go to a bicameral legislature. One was a crazy old coot from my hometown who was confusing unicameralism with nonpartisanism; the other was my blowhard third cousin visiting from Oklahoma. I think they’re both dead now. > > There is essentially no desire to move back to bicameralism in our very conservative state. Out of curiosity, have there been any genuinely stupid attempts at legislation in Nebraska, I mean really REALLY dumb-ass ideas that didn’t get shouted down immediately? A unicameral legislature would be fine if the members were mature, if the body would be its OWN source of “sober second thought” (as Canadians often describe the role of our Senate) but has your state recently edged toward the legislative dark side in any way? ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/53 "2012-01-09T17:26:17Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then what – **separated from the “Great Compromise”** – is its actual purpose? Why does it need a prupose other that the “Great Compromise”? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/54 "2012-01-09T17:37:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > After all, from which branch have most arguable abuses of power come in the past century? I can find horrific abuses of power in all three branches. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/55 "2012-01-09T17:41:31Z")
I see one advantage as having an upper house with longer terms and a smaller delibrative body as a defense against flavor of the day politics. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/56 "2012-01-09T17:52:30Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Bicameralism has a purpose when there’s some difference in what the chambers represent. Maybe it’s still not a good thing, but at least you can point to a division in what the two houses are meant to do. When they’re two flavors of the same thing as they are in most states now, they really just duplicate effort. I don’t agree. I think that having an upper house with longer terms is useful as a moderator of potential radicalism in a more frequently elected lower house. What I don’t like about the U.S. Senate is the complete domination by the minority through legislative tricks like filibusters, secret holds, and other things. I would not like to the the U.S. Senate eliminated and in fact would like to see its role as “representative of the states” as even more eroded, because I think that “representation of the states” in our national legislature is an obsolete concept. > [@](#): > > The Ohio Senate, on the other hand, is pretty much the Ohio House with fewer members. I think the Ohio Senate serves the same purpose as the U.S. Senate does at the state level. And in fact since Ohio and many other (most) states don’t have an executive as powerful as the U.S. president, I think it’s fine that state legislatures, in particular, are weakened in this way. What I mean is that in Ohio, and in other states, executive power is not exclusively in the hands of the governor. There are several other constitutional executives – attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor – whose authority is derived directly from the people and thus the government is not under the sole control of a single executives. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/57 "2012-01-09T18:33:00Z")
But since the bicameral Congress isn’t bicameral to reduce its power relative to the executive… and since it isn’t even clear that it is weaker due to being bicameral. In fact, the difficulty getting things thru both houses forced the executive to sign a budget bill with things he didn’t like to avoid the battle of getting something else passed. Granted the legislative power now is its ability to wage a war of attrition (attriting patience) but that is not a function of it being bicameral… …therefore the OP arguements are not even coherent arguements with a basis in reality. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/58 "2012-01-09T18:36:14Z")
As noted earlier, the idea that a state Governor has anywhere near the executive power and authority that the US President has is laughable. Presidents can essentially declare war these days. And some governors can be recalled from office (as was done in CA not long ago) by the people. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/59 "2012-01-09T20:04:36Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > Time fort some history. Many colonies had very basic congresses of their own, as unicameral bodies. So the argument that they were just aping the U. S. national model falls flat. They knew what they had and actively chose something else. John Adams developed it and in effect designed American government almost single-handedly. As I already noted, 2 colonies were unicameral. After the Declaration of Independence 2 states were unicameral as well (Delaware getting a Senate and Georgia going unicameral). As Americans were setting up republican governments for the first time ever there weren’t a lot of guidelines other than their colonial traditions. So state constitutions took various forms. If you look at them in chronological order you can see an evolution towards the current system. Constitutions framed in 1776 or 1777 have more out of the ordinary features than those drafted later. The process culminates in the Massachusetts constitution (still in use today) which looks like you would expect a state government to. John Adams was primarily responsible for drafting that constitution but did so not based on his own unique ideas but rather the American experience in self-government up to that point. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/60 "2012-01-09T20:38:09Z")
(Missed this post before.) > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It also forces more compromise and debate on laws… Compromise isn’t automatically good. As I said, often you get the worst of both sides. And compromise dilutes ideology. The electorate does not get a chance to accurately weigh ideas. So bad ones hang around far longer than they deserve. As for debate, there is no real debate in legislatures. That’s why everyone leaves and does something worthwhile when a member gets up in front of the cameras. > [@](#): > > Which can insure that a majority who has taken one house based on some popular passion can’t immediately institute a series of radical legislation. It doesn’t just hold up bad legislation. It holds up good legislation and more importantly it holds up popular legislation. It devalues the franchise. Individuals can vote for more representatives but they get worse representation. > [@](#): > > The founders of our country and the colonies before them were generally pretty smart guys who had seen the problems with radicalism. Even before the French Revolution which just confirmed the problems with radicalism, history had shown when radicals take over government and there are no road blocks to them doing whatever they want, the results are rarely good for society. The founders were smart but they were also fearful… as befits those at the top of the pyramid during times of social change. Unfortunately historians have not done a good job explaining the times so people tend to take the paranoia and hyperbole of key founders at face value. In fact their more democratic opponent’s “radical” ideas were hardly that far out. Not only had they been accepted by many among the elite prior to 1776 but they are commonplace now. Today we have paper money, easy credit, debt relief, and no debtor’s prisons. The most radical act of the French Revolution (giving peasants title to land) actually made that nation more like the USA of the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862.md?page=4)