So you don’t feel less free than you could be with a differently composed upper legislative chamber?
Not really, no. There is a strong push for electing our Upper House, but they are logically inconsistent, IMO: they claim an elected Upper House would be ‘more democratic’, when in fact the most democratic option would be to abolish it entirely. An elected House would be much more assertive but for the wrong reasons - politically motivated rather than relying on the knowledge of its constituent expertise to challenge the lower House.
It was our House of Lords that shot down a few years ago attempts by the government to extend the period of detention without trial for suspected terrorists. The Commons did not stop it.
I might be persuaded to accept a [del]Canadian-style[/del] House of Lords-style Senate provided it weren’t just another way for the present occupants of the House and White House to pack a deliberative body with their people.
Sortition, perhaps.
Athens
California Prop 8
Mic Checks at Occupy Meetings
I will ignore the Straw man portion but you should rephrase it and I will respond
The point is not to make government more effective, the point is to restrict the power of the majority faction and their ability to pass laws that are tyrannical against smaller factions or what is known as “the tyranny of the majority”.
Do you have any examples of unicameral governments that are/were not a small and homogeneous territory that is not tyrannical.
I think China is the only modern example of a large diverse unicameral government, most have found that having two houses is necessary despite how frustrating it can be some times.
That all ya got?! How is any of that “tyrannical to minority interests”?
Well, there was the USSR’s Supreme Soviet . . . no, wait, that was bicameral.
um…what?
How about explaining to me how the mob rule of Athens, Prop 8 and or the silencing of ideas you do not agree with is not tyrannical?
I know! The U.S. under the unicameral Congress of the Articles of Confederation! Not tyrannical!
:dubious: No, no. You offered the examples, you have to defend them.
The articals of confederation did not produce a functional government and thus that experiment failed.
It was not in existence long enough to know it’s effects.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/08/17/opinion-the-tyranny-of-the-majority/
http://www.economist.com/node/15127600
So so I need to pay a pound for the next hour or are you arguing on your own time 
Can a one party government even be considered bicameral?
One solution I’d favour is placing all Lords appointments in the hands of a cross-party Appointments Commission which would answer for its decisions to both Houses of Parliament. I think this would be more meritocratic than election and better than our present system which leaves too much discretion to the PM.
Why not?
Because until 1989 it would rubber stamp anything the party wanted it to do so the fact it had two bodies didn’t matter at all.
Separation of powers kind of requires separate powers.
These examples don’t seem to have much to tell us about unicameralism in an industrialized Western nation. To be fair, there don’t seem to be any nations that fit that bill that aren’t smaller and more homogenous than the USA. What examples we have, such Portugal and the Scandanavian nations are not known for tyranny. I wasn’t aware of the rarity of unicameral systems. Nebraska isn’t completely homogenous. What about them?
I’m not attempting to distort your argument. Is it not that there are genuine differences that the Senate helps balance? If that is so important what about the other differences I mention? Shouldn’t those be balanced as well? Lets narrow it down to just blacks. Historically blacks have had it pretty bad. Looking at the numbers today you’ll still find that African-Americans are lagging behind whites. Is this not an important difference that should be balanced? Note that African-Americans are underrepresented in the Senate given how so much of their population is urban. What is so special about rural needs that they deserve to have their voice amplified over those of blacks?
Here’s the thing about the “tyranny of the majority”. Tyranny sucks, no matter who is in charge. But someone has to be in charge or else government can’t get anything done. So either the majority can exercise power and potentially act tyrannically or the minority can do so. The advantage of majority rule is that more people have to be convinced to go along before tyranny can set in.
Madison’s idea that you can harness a bunch of small groups in each state to guard against tyranny might have been compelling back in 1788 but today we have mass political parties. We know those little groups have banded together to form huge nationwide groups. So we can no longer pretend that there is a choice between having majority rule or rule by a collection of minorities. The collection of minorities, by having joined together under a single political party and won control of the government, is now the majority.
If they have never tried it then how can they have learned that it won’t work?
What about the British? They have very weak bicameralism and yet they are free. You said you would argue that they would be freeer with stronger bicameralism. (At least I think that’s what you were saying.) How would that work?
Separation of powers has nothing to do with bicameralism, it has to do with the separation of the executive from the legislature.
I chose terms poorly, I was not speaking of the system of “checks and balances”, I was speaking of how when a one party system has absolute control of both appointments and has a government which will rubber stamp any legislation that it hands out, and has the ability to overrule those bodies if they did choose to over rule any such legislation having two bodies is absolutely irrelevant.
Note Athens…they tried it, most governments that do try simplistic pure democracy fail fairly quickly.
The reason I mentioned Mic checks is that it is a current example, the occupy movement had little or no chance of long term survival because of their insistence on ruling by consensus.
The system we have where out upper house is allocated via states may be less than ideal but this thread was not about replacing it with another form of upper house, it was suggested that it should be reduced to a popular based vote, and that is untenable.
The Scandinavian countries are anomalies mostly due to them having homogenized societies IMHO.
Finland’s parliament for example, laws it passes are not subject to judicial review.
The largest unicameral democracy would in fact be South Korea. But it’s an exception - with this exception I believe all democracies over 15 million in population are bicameral.
And ‘weak’ bicameralism is the norm.