First Proposal: Unicameral General Assembly

Bicameralism, or having two distinct legislative bodies, at the state level is an outdated institution. The “Great Compromise” that devised bicameralism at the Federal level was done to balance the small/big state dilemma when 13 colonies were forging a new union. It is not apparent to me why this legislative structure was then carried over to State legislatures. We don’t have this for City Councils and County Boards. Other democratic institutions, non-profits or corporate boards, for example, don’t use bicameralism, so why do we at the State level? Nebraska is one state in the Union that has a unicameral system, and I’ve never heard it fails them. Therefore, my proposal is to end bicameralism and implement a one-body, unicameral General Assembly.

The obvious main benefit of unicameralism, as I see it, is that by keeping the legislative process in one body, there clearly are gains in efficiency and the speed of the deliberative process. While I think that’s somewhat important, I think the real benefits are more subtle and I believe that, in fact, the legislative process will be more open and transparent as well. Two bodies sometimes compete against each other in time and attention, and much time is spent negotiating “differences” between the two, with each body capable of “vetoing” the other’s bills. In fact, quite often much time is spent in one body adjusting legislation based on the perception of what might happen in the other body. While this competition and negotiation should remain and in fact should be supported—that is in essence what the legislative process is—let that happen in one body. Let coalitions and parties form within the body to hash out those differences. Citizens will appreciate the transparency from unicameralism as it will be easier to “see” the coalitions and the negotiations, letting the merits of the bills be argued, instead of the brokering between two independent bodies.

Arguments against unicameralism will probably be of the nature that two bodies force a well thought-out, deliberative process, and that one body will bring about hastily passed legislation. It’s not an easy argument to go against—there’s some merit to that. I think, though, it should not be automatically assumed that a bill that is passed by two bodies necessarily is the best bill, or was necessarily the “will” of the people. The longer, more “deliberative” process may actually put out a more butchered, ugly result. I just don’t think it’s guaranteed that the outputs in bicameralism are always better, just because two bodies approved it.

Another related argument will be that bicameral legislatures are better because typically the two bodies have differences in how they’re structured, for instance, larger districts, longer terms in the so-called “upper” house. Legislative rules may also be different, for instance, how committees are assigned and created. These differences allow bills to be looked at from two supposedly “different” perspectives. This has merits too. But in general, I believe that some of the “good” parts of bicameralism can be maintained by incorporating those concepts into a unicameral system, primarily by having a diverse, mixed system of elections and term lengths in the unicameral system, which will be the subject of an upcoming post.