Try to think about how that would work out IRL. Just the senatorial filibuster has caused trouble enough! The best government is not one constantly deadlocked/gridlocked into inaction. (I realize Libertarians’ MMV.) Remember that “inaction” in this context means leaving the status quo in place, no matter how unjust or obsolete or otherwise stupid (like Jim Crow in the South). I repeat: A republic should be able to make mistakes, learn from them, and correct them, all with facility.
In California, the assembly has 80 members and the senate has 40. Senate terms are 4 years with a two-term limit (8 years max.), twice the length of assembly terms of 2 years with a 3-term limit (6 years max.).
Some advocate for a unicameral legislature of 120 members. After all, with California’s population, each legislator arguably represents far too many people. Further, separate houses are not necessary, contribute to gridlock, cost more, and lead to not-so-public meetings between houses to reconcile differing versions of legislation.
Others argue that with separate houses, each senator must appeal to twice as many people for twice as long, which leads to more moderate and long term thinking. This arguably dampens the immediate whims of the assembly. So, a bicameral legislature offers two measuring sticks of (1) immediate whims of the people in the assembly; and (2) more moderate views in the senate. If you go unicameral, you only get one measuring stick.
Why is that desirable?!
The idea is that it’s more desirable because you want continuity in government policy. You don’t want a government that adopts policies based on short term popular whims.
Because the unwashed masses sometimes get stupid ideas. Like that flag burning is such a severe problem that we should amend the Constitution to stop this pox on our nation. The thing passes the House of Representatives damn near every time it comes up, but never passes the Senate. Although it is often said that people should get the government they deserve, I hope that the government would act with greater consideration and foresight than whatever may strike the whim of people at the moment.
Look at California. It is a basket case of governance. Why? Because every major issue is decided on how the people feel about it at a given time due to the ballot proposition system. Screw property taxes! More money for teachers! More money for cops! Let’s rewrite insurance laws based on 30 second TV commercials!
Aside from that silliness, I’m not sure there really is a good reason to maintain two house legislatures in so many states. The idea of a two house city council isn’t compelling, even in our largest cities. I think a two house Congress is a good idea due to states having such an important position in the government, but for states? I’m just not seeing any really good reasons other than tradition, which really isn’t a very good reason at all.
Professor La Paz is either incredibly stupid or incredibly ignorant, or both.
What position do states have in the federal government, apart from the Senate? This is a serious question, I honestly can’t think of one.
They have no place in the federal government, but they have an unmistakeable and protected place in our constitutional system.
Approval of constitutional amendments, standing in the electoral college, and the Tenth Amendment, for a few things.
States also conduct federal elections in the United States. (This seems odd to those of us from federations like Australia and Canada, where the federal government conducts them.)
Yeah, but in practice, what is the ratio to adopted vs. repealed laws? Hmm?