The only exception is Nebraska. Why is that? I mean, wouldn’t a one-house legislature be more efficient, and reach decisions more quickly, and more accountably (since there’s no way to blame the result on the other house’s intransigence)?
The two-house nature of the U.S. Congress is necessitated by the Great Compromise, but that doesn’t apply at the state level: States have “parallel sovereignty” with the federal government and constitutionally protected status, but sub-state units of government, counties and towns, are legally creatures of the state, which can create or abolish them at will. Furthermore, an arrangement where, say, every county has equal representation in the state senate regardless of population was ruled unconstitutional in [url=]Gray v. Sanders (1963). So what’s the point of every state legislature having two houses?
The states that existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution probably had bicameral legislatures because Parliament was bicameral, and the newer states tended to set up their state governments on the same model as the federal government.
Generally the idea behind a bicameral legislature in the 18th century was to balance power between the elites and the non-elites. For instance, when the New York Legislature was set up in 1777:
We get along with unicameral legislatures below the state level (I’m not aware of any bicameral county boards or city councils), and could probably do so at the state level as well.
As noted, many of the historical reasons for a separate state Senate no longer apply. States no longer maintain differing suffrage requirements for the two houses, and Senates no longer represent distinct polities (such as counties) regardless of population.
The remaining argument for a bicameral legislature is diffusion of power. Put crudely, you have to bribe, lobby, or muscle twice as many people to get a bill through the legislature, which makes it more difficult.
But, the flip side of this is that it diffuses accountability and responsibility. Voters have twice as many names and faces to remember, the two houses blame each other when things go wrong, and because Senate terms are staggered, you can’t “throw the bums out” at any single election. Living in Illinois, I see little evidence that a bicameral legislature minimizes corruption or the influence of special interests.
Personally, I wish at least one large, urban state would experiment with a unicameral, just to see what happens. We already have Nebraska, which so far as I know has suffered no adverse consequences. I wish the state experimenting would be Illinois, because politics here can’t get much worse.
Another argument for a unicameral legislature is that, by making the legislative branch more streamlined and efficient, it makes the legislative branch politically stronger as against the executive branch, the governor; and, as between the two, the legislative branch has a better claim to be the democratic voice of the people.
I really think the states would be better off under a unicameral, or dromedary, system (as opposed to a bicameral, or Bactrian, system).
If you want examples that evolved out of the Westminster bi-cameral system, and that include large cities, I offer you:
(1) at the national level, New Zealand.
(2) at the state or provincial level, Queensland and all the provinces of Canada.
Combined with the Westminster system of a government chosen effectively by a majority in the legislature, this means a relatively powerful government, especially in New Zealand, where the national government does not have the limits of being in a federation.
“I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent— the more impediments to legislation the better.” – Professor Bernardo del la Paz
That’s true, but the idea of a bicameral legislature was already in the American mindset because of the British model. In other words, when they were thinking of ways to structure their legislature, the idea of a bicameral one just made sense to them, because it’s what they were used to as the way a legislature “should be”.
If the US had been settled by France, they might have set up a tricameral legislature.
Whatever is an impediment to legislation is also an impediment to repeal of legislation. A republic should be able to make mistakes, learn from them, and correct them, all with facility.
Quebec got rid of it’s Legislative Council in 1968 and renamed the Legislative Assembly the National Assembly. They kept the Council chamber as is for ceremonial use (they redid the Assembly chamber in blue).
The Atlantic provinces all had bicameral legislatures. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick abolished their Legislative Councils; PEI combined the two houses into one; and Newfoundland never revived their Legislative Council after the period of trusteeship by the U.K.
The old Province of Canada had a bicameral Legislature. When it was split into Quebec and Ontario in 1867, Quebec had a bicameral legislature, and Ontario didn’t.
Manitoba had a bicameral legislature originally, but abolished the upper house shortly after entering Confederation, as a cost-savings measure.
Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. have never had bicameral Legislatures.
“I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent— the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority… while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?” – Professor Bernardo de la Paz