A Single House Upon A Hill
May. 4th, 2008 01:54 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
barking_iguanaCross posted from Blue Jersey. I hope you have a comment you want to make, but please make it there.
Huntsu mentions calls for a state constitutional convention in his diary on the timidity of the legislature. And it's not only timidity our current system fosters, it's the corruption that ebbs and flows, but always remains much higher than we'd like.
The heart of the problem is the individual legislators' relative anonymity. Most well-informed voters probably know who at least one of their legislators is, especially if the voter comes from a town large enough or lucky enough to have one of its own political figures in the legislature. But how many, even among primary voters, could name all three?
I don't know what solutions she thinks a convention would or should come up with, but I know of one change that would make for a more accountable and probably courageous set of legislators. It sounds radical, but it's been in place n Nebraska since 1937.
I propose a unicameral (that means only one house) legislature, with small districts, each electing only one legislator. Let's look at both the positive and negative effects that would have, as well as why we have the system we have now.
Bicameral (two-house) legislatures trace their roots to the English Parliament, where it was flet the nobility and the untitled rich who were allowed to vote vote for the lower house were deemed to need separate representation, to account for their distinct interests. When legislatures were introduced in America, that was still a big factor in the thinking. As the class distinction between the houses became passe, other, quite real, advantages of separate houses were brought to the fore. But much of the support for bicameral legislatures is really just comfort with tradition.
The principal effect of a divided legislature is to make the legislature weaker in comparison to the executive. That may seem counterintuitive, because one might think that two houses can speak twice as loudly as one. But unless both houses agree, the legislature does nothing. This produces a strong bias toward inaction, which can be a good thing, if you're worried about a government that acts impulsively. If I'm remembering right, the Federalist Papers makes that case quite well, but I don't think the Nebraska government is known for being reckless, and I do think there are safeguards that can be easily implemented to make the legislative process as fast or as slow as we want it. For some ideas on that, see the Checks and Balances section of http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/web/public/history
In New Jersey, we used to have the horribly undemocratic practice of each county electing one of the then twenty-one Senators, regardless of the population of the county. We got rid of that in the 1947 constitution, but with the legislature needing to be reconstituted, they came up with the, I argue, not so bright idea of abiding by tradition, seemingly saving money, and keeping districting simple by having only one set of districts for two houses of differing prestige. The way they kept the Senate the more exclusive club was to elect multiple Assemblypersons from the same district, at the same time.
That makes each legislator more anonymous to the voters. And because they are less watched, the spend more of their time wheeling and dealing, rather than attending to the public's interests. We can rail against those who neglect us, especially against those who are most egregious. But we must recognize that it is to a fair extent an artifact of the environment in which they operate; and environment we can change.
The combined districts do save the headache of an additional redistricting (U.S. House, N.J. Senate, and N.J. Assembly) each decade, as most states go through. But a unicameral legislature would give the same benefit. Furthermore, having only one house's worth of committees and committee staffs would save the taxpayers some momey.
Going to a unicameral legislature would also allow for smaller districts, giving a more local input to each legislator, while reducing the total number of legislators and their staffs. With a 100-seat legislature, each legislator's attention would be spread out among only 40% as many citizens as now, but we'd still have a 17% reduction in legislators.
Does this make sense to you? Have I missed important advantages or disadvantages? Do you have other structural ideas for improving the nature of the state government?
Huntsu mentions calls for a state constitutional convention in his diary on the timidity of the legislature. And it's not only timidity our current system fosters, it's the corruption that ebbs and flows, but always remains much higher than we'd like.
The heart of the problem is the individual legislators' relative anonymity. Most well-informed voters probably know who at least one of their legislators is, especially if the voter comes from a town large enough or lucky enough to have one of its own political figures in the legislature. But how many, even among primary voters, could name all three?
I don't know what solutions she thinks a convention would or should come up with, but I know of one change that would make for a more accountable and probably courageous set of legislators. It sounds radical, but it's been in place n Nebraska since 1937.
I propose a unicameral (that means only one house) legislature, with small districts, each electing only one legislator. Let's look at both the positive and negative effects that would have, as well as why we have the system we have now.
Bicameral (two-house) legislatures trace their roots to the English Parliament, where it was flet the nobility and the untitled rich who were allowed to vote vote for the lower house were deemed to need separate representation, to account for their distinct interests. When legislatures were introduced in America, that was still a big factor in the thinking. As the class distinction between the houses became passe, other, quite real, advantages of separate houses were brought to the fore. But much of the support for bicameral legislatures is really just comfort with tradition.
The principal effect of a divided legislature is to make the legislature weaker in comparison to the executive. That may seem counterintuitive, because one might think that two houses can speak twice as loudly as one. But unless both houses agree, the legislature does nothing. This produces a strong bias toward inaction, which can be a good thing, if you're worried about a government that acts impulsively. If I'm remembering right, the Federalist Papers makes that case quite well, but I don't think the Nebraska government is known for being reckless, and I do think there are safeguards that can be easily implemented to make the legislative process as fast or as slow as we want it. For some ideas on that, see the Checks and Balances section of http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/web/public/history
In New Jersey, we used to have the horribly undemocratic practice of each county electing one of the then twenty-one Senators, regardless of the population of the county. We got rid of that in the 1947 constitution, but with the legislature needing to be reconstituted, they came up with the, I argue, not so bright idea of abiding by tradition, seemingly saving money, and keeping districting simple by having only one set of districts for two houses of differing prestige. The way they kept the Senate the more exclusive club was to elect multiple Assemblypersons from the same district, at the same time.
That makes each legislator more anonymous to the voters. And because they are less watched, the spend more of their time wheeling and dealing, rather than attending to the public's interests. We can rail against those who neglect us, especially against those who are most egregious. But we must recognize that it is to a fair extent an artifact of the environment in which they operate; and environment we can change.
The combined districts do save the headache of an additional redistricting (U.S. House, N.J. Senate, and N.J. Assembly) each decade, as most states go through. But a unicameral legislature would give the same benefit. Furthermore, having only one house's worth of committees and committee staffs would save the taxpayers some momey.
Going to a unicameral legislature would also allow for smaller districts, giving a more local input to each legislator, while reducing the total number of legislators and their staffs. With a 100-seat legislature, each legislator's attention would be spread out among only 40% as many citizens as now, but we'd still have a 17% reduction in legislators.
Does this make sense to you? Have I missed important advantages or disadvantages? Do you have other structural ideas for improving the nature of the state government?
