# 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:** 4
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/61 "2012-01-09T21:00:32Z")
> [@tim-n-va](#): > > Why does it need a prupose other that the “Great Compromise”? Because this thread is not about the U.S. Senate specifically. Because almost all our **states** have two-house legislatures, and not because of the “Great Compromise.” ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/62 "2012-01-09T21:13:35Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > 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? A bit from time to time but, honestly, no more than other similarly-attuned states. What slippage we have seen has been more due to term-limit legislation passed a few years ago. With a mandatory dearth of legislative experience, we’ve seen a populist bent creep in that we did not see when I was growing up. Then again, I understand this is something of a national phenomenon as well. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/63 "2012-01-09T21:17:06Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > 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. Then elect the single house less frequently. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/64 "2012-01-09T21:21:31Z")
Yes, term limits in state legislatures has largely been disastrous for effective governing and rational policy. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/65 "2012-01-09T21:23:18Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Then elect the single house less frequently. And sacrifice frequent accountability? (just playing devil’s advocate) ---
**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, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/66 "2012-01-09T21:23:24Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Then elect the single house less frequently. And so we’re losing the advantages offered by bicameral legislatures and gaining what exactly? I don’t see any actual advantage of unicameral legislatures, particularly at the state level. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2012, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/67 "2012-01-09T21:28:47Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > And so we’re losing the advantages offered by bicameral legislatures and gaining what exactly? I don’t see any actual advantage of unicameral legislatures, particularly at the state level. > **[Nebraska Legislature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature#Advantages_and_Disadvantages)** > > Majority (33) .mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}  > Minority (16)   > The Nebraska Legislature (also called the Unicameral) is the legislature of the U.S. state of Nebraska. The Legislature meets at the Nebraska State Capitol in Li... ---
**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, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/68 "2012-01-09T22:18:59Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > A bit from time to time but, honestly, no more than other similarly-attuned states. What slippage we have seen has been more due to term-limit legislation passed a few years ago. With a mandatory dearth of legislative experience, we’ve seen a populist bent creep in that we did not see when I was growing up. Then again, I understand this is something of a national phenomenon as well. Yeah, populism… that’s something in dire and perpetual need of a short leash. ---
**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, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/69 "2012-01-09T22:41:20Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > A bit from time to time but, honestly, no more than other similarly-attuned states. What slippage we have seen has been more due to term-limit legislation passed a few years ago. With a mandatory dearth of legislative experience, we’ve seen a populist bent creep in that we did not see when I was growing up. Then again, I understand this is something of a national phenomenon as well. Populists consistently underestimate (when they do not irrationally deny) the value of career politicians. ---
**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 10, 2012, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/70 "2012-01-10T00:15:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Because this thread is not about the U.S. Senate specifically. Because almost all our **states** have two-house legislatures, and not because of the “Great Compromise.” Since you put it that way, I’m on board. BAN THE BI. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/71 "2012-01-10T00:32:13Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > [Nebraska Legislature - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature#Advantages_and_Disadvantages) > [@](#): > > **Advantages and Disadvantages** > > The following selection is excerpted from “A Look at Your Unicameral,” pg. 2-3. (Lincoln: Nebraska Legislative Council,1994): > > Advocates of the unicameral legislature say: > > - There is no reason for people to vote for representatives to two separate houses to serve the same purpose. “One man - one vote” has negated theoriginal intent of having each house elected on a different basis. > - The unicameral form simplifies bill passage. The process is more direct. Bills are more readily available for scrutiny by legislators and the public. > - The Conference Committee, an inherent evil necessary for the operation of a bicameral system, is eliminated. > - Lobbyists are less influential in the unicameral legislature because the lawmaking process is more public. > - In a unicameral system, it is easier to achieve cooperation between executive and legislative branches. > - A unicameral system is more economical. > - A unicameral system offers greater responsibility to legislators. Legislators are more accountable to the public and their constituency because their position is a matter of public record. They are not able to urge opposite positions within the other house. > > Advocates of the bicameral legislature say: > > - A bicameral legislature provides for more careful and deliberate consideration of legislation. Action of the two houses required for passage prevents bills from being quickly passed under the sway of emotion. > - Many of the charges of shifting responsibility are exaggerated and ill-founded. A legislator who continually fails to accept responsibility would not be reelected. > - Objectionable lobbying is not the major problem in the bicameral legislature that it is often assumed to be. Lobbyists can more easily promote desired legislation where control is needed in only one house. > - Although bicameral state legislatures are not perfect, it would be easier to correct their flaws than to change their structure. > - Further consideration of legislation by a duly-elected body would assure more thoughtful action in passing bills. Hmm. Interesting, but what I don’t see are any studies, or even discussion, of whose predictions have proven true/false. This is **important!** There should be studies! Nebraska is our only existing example in the American context of a dromedary, or unicameral, legislature (as distinct from a Bactrian, or bicameral, legislature). ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/72 "2012-01-10T11:21:09Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Yes, if you think that metric, which has no real practical value and certainly no special theoretical value, is be-all-end-all then you’d obviously support abolishing the Senate, but I don’t see why that concern should override everything else. Easy. It’s in the fucking declaration of independence. All men are created equal. Seeing as the Declaration was specifically created to combat lack of representation, it is clearly stating that all men should have the same vote. We’ve slowly but surely made that more and more true in our country, by returning civil rights to people of all races and sexes. Now we have one more civil rights abuse–that of the people in more populous states. There are other institutions where one man having more than one vote is considered wrong–say in ballot stuffing or someone in power being able to know how you voted and thus blackmail you. Why should a power imbalance elsewhere be tolerated? And this is on the level of that. The difference is not minute. The vote of someone in Wyoming has 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California, either by their representatives or in votes for President. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/73 "2012-01-10T12:05:21Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Hmm. Interesting, but what I don’t see are any studies, or even discussion, of whose predictions have proven true/false. > > This is **important!** There should be studies! Nebraska is our only existing example in the American context of a dromedary, or unicameral, legislature (as distinct from a Bactrian, or bicameral, legislature). There have been plenty of studies, at least on this side of the pond 🙂 I studied bicameralism as one part of my Masters degree, and my uni library was fortunately fairly flush with books on it. Unfortunately most seem to be about bicameralism in parliamentary systems rather than presidential ones, but I’m sure they must be out there. For reference, Big Names in the field are people such as George Tsebelis, Arend Ljiphart, Kaare Strøm, Matthew Gabel, and Wolgang Müller. ---
**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 10, 2012, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/74 "2012-01-10T13:42:06Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Easy. It’s in the fucking declaration of independence. All men are created equal. Seeing as the Declaration was specifically created to combat lack of representation, it is clearly stating that all men should have the same vote. We’ve slowly but surely made that more and more true in our country, by returning civil rights to people of all races and sexes. Now we have one more civil rights abuse–that of the people in more populous states. You can’t use an originalist argument to say that the United States should make sure the citizens of all 50 states receive exactly the same representative to constituent ratio. That offends logic and history. You’re trying to rely on a document written and then approved by the founding fathers who were the same guys that created the Senate _and_ the Electoral College in the first place. You can’t rely on their words as some meaningful argument for the abolition of the Senate. > [@](#): > > There are other institutions where one man having more than one vote is considered wrong–say in ballot stuffing or someone in power being able to know how you voted and thus blackmail you. Why should a power imbalance elsewhere be tolerated? One man one vote applies at the ballot box. It doesn’t apply in the legislature. No one has one man one vote in the legislature aside from the men who actually serve in the legislature (the women in the legislature get one vote as well.) Every citizen in the United States actually has three legislative votes at the Federal level, their two Senators and their district’s congressperson. > [@](#): > > And this is on the level of that. The difference is not minute. The vote of someone in Wyoming has 3.7 times the voting power of someone in California, either by their representatives or in votes for President. It doesn’t actually have 3.7 times the voting power, citizens of Wyoming have 3 representatives, just like all the individual citizens of California. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/75 "2012-01-10T14:05:58Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It doesn’t actually have 3.7 times the voting power, citizens of Wyoming have 3 representatives, just like all the individual citizens of California. I was going to type up another analogy to point out how preposterous this claim is but is that really necessary? This is just sad. Americans are not equally represented in the Senate. If you support this inequality then defend it. Don’t try to imagine it away. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/76 "2012-01-10T17:47:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Every citizen in the United States actually has three legislative votes at the Federal level, their two Senators and their district’s congressperson. I live in Chicago, I have 41, 17 of which I can cast myself. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/77 "2012-01-10T19:20:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Still, why does any state legislature **need** two houses? The thinking behind the “Great Compromise” does not apply. Because when you only have the one chamber it’s free to vote crazy laws, or power+money for itself. Of course, the President could always veto them, but then it’s much easier to buy off a lone President than it is to buy off a whole Senate. For that matter, it’s also easier for private moneyed interested to buy off one house than two. And since the latter is pretty much done already… at least make the bastards work for it a little ! 😛 I also think your OP is funny. “The Founders feared legislative abuse, so they took steps to prevent it from happening. We’ve seen some executive abuse lately. Therefore, those steps should be annulled !”. Presumably so abuse becomes more even ? 😉 ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/78 "2012-01-10T20:18:29Z")
> [@2sense](#): > > I was going to type up another analogy to point out how preposterous this claim is but is that really necessary? This is just sad. Americans are not equally represented in the Senate. If you support this inequality then defend it. Don’t try to imagine it away. As a citizen of a state in the United States you are entitled to representation in Congress. Your congressman in the House and your two State senators. The citizens of California receive the representation they are entitled to just as the citizens of Wyoming do. Are you arguing an individual citizen in California _doesn’t_ have three congressional representatives? And that a citizen of Wyoming has more than three? What you seem hung up on is the citizen of California’s congressman represents roughly 700,000 people, and his two Senators represent 37 million, whereas the two Senators from Wyoming represent 600,000 and the lone congressman from Wyoming represents 600,000. But that doesn’t mean any individual Californian has _less_ representation than any individual from Wyoming (what is Wyoming’s demonym?) One man one vote has _never_ been a principle for anything other than the ballot box to directly elect the representatives themselves. In a Senate election or a House election, it is one man, one vote. Each individual gets to cast one vote in each race in their district, no one gets more than one vote. What happens at the Federal level in terms of the portion of political power a region’s representatives receive relative to the population of that region is not at all related to the concept of “one man, one vote.” ---
**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 10, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/79 "2012-01-10T20:26:55Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > I live in Chicago, I have 41, 17 of which I can cast myself. 😉 I’m assuming your great-grandparents are probably still loyal voters in Chicago as well. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862/80 "2012-01-10T20:42:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > What you seem hung up on is the citizen of California’s congressman represents roughly 700,000 people, and his two Senators represent 37 million, whereas the two Senators from Wyoming represent 600,000 and the lone congressman from Wyoming represents 600,000. \I’ve always felt that the current cap on the size of the HoR is pretty crazy. The population of the US has essentially doubled since we limited the House to 435 members. The UK lower house has 650 members. In France, it’s 577. Germany? 620. We have a much larger population, but have a smaller legislature? Why?\ > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t mean any individual Californian has _less_ representation than any individual from Wyoming (what is Wyoming’s demonym?) Wyomingite [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-one-house-legislature-is-better-than-a-two-house-legislature/608862.md?page=5)