Bicameral lege v. Unicameral lege?

[payme_rick]

Just throwing it out there... most of you guys opine from angles I'm not used to hearing, so I'm interested in your thoughts...

Of course I understand "why" we have a bicameral legislature, to water down the lege branch's power, but in today's politics would a unicameral legislature be more productive for liberty and freedom/any worse?

I'm just curious to see some responses... I really have no opinion on it, really just thought of it this morning...

[Matt Collins]

We don't want an effective government. We want a very inefficient government making the threshold to accomplish anything very difficult.

[payme_rick]

I agree with that Collins, and with the philosophy of having a bicameral congress...

My deal is it seems (at times) easier for the legislature to get things done without the citizens on top of it when a bill goes here, there, back, there again etc.. "Divide and conquer" in a round-about way instead of straight-up yes or no before going oval...

[mczerone]

The bicameral legislature was adopted from the British system of two houses, one of Lords, one of Commons. They were/are not separate merely to "water down" the legislative power, but more to ensure that local governments (parishes/counties/regions) and the people within them each had a say in the central government.

The U.S. system had two houses to apportion representation in the Federal govt equally among the states and the people, where the Senate gave each state an equal share of representation, and the House gave the people representation roughly based on population. This all changed with the 17th Amendment when Senators became popularly elected, and now represent not any state govt, but the people of the state. This effectively ruled out any dampening of mob-rule that democracy brings because the Senate no longer represents the interests of their state qua state, but of leading demographic voting blocs in their states - just like the House.

Personally I'd like to see a miden-cameral legislature. The only thing legitimate a legislature can do is set rules upon itself and those active in the government. Any positive law binding on the wider population is illegitimate.

[Matt Collins]

I've always liked the idea of a tricameral legislature.

House of the People
House of the State Governments (Senate)
House of Scholars

The third house should be ivory tower types who hold masters and doctorate degrees. Ideally it'd be lawyers, scientists, engineers, doctors, accountants, etc -- people who truly have experience in the issues and are professionals in their specific field. They could help to stop or slow down nitwittery that the other two houses puts forth.

[erowe1]

I would prefer no legislature. Right and wrong can't be invented like the rules of a board game, they have to be discovered, like the laws of mathematics. No group of people, no matter how overwhelming their majority and how convoluted their legislative process has any right to make a law telling someone they can't offer their labor for under $7/hr. or whatever. The same goes for all the other laws Congress passes. They are either inherently right, in which case Congress is superfluous, or they are inherently wrong, in which case Congress is an agent of evil. Either way, it shouldn't exist.