Crystal Cameral Clear

Time’s up. Abolishing the bicameral legislative system is imminent and necessary.

The United States Congress has a long storied history. Split into two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives were a compromise in choosing between equal and proportional representation. The House of Representatives serves as the chamber in proportional representation — one representative for a certain population of people. The Senate serves as the chamber in equal representation — two senators for each state no matter the state’s population size. This compromise was created to protect small states, as states with small population sizes need some sort of assurance that their issues won’t just be ignored on the federal level while big states believe that, since they are representing more people, they need more representatives. This compromise birthed a bicameral legislature, meaning that there are two chambers of congress. A unicameral legislature would have just one chamber.

State legislatures don’t have to worry about this same issue of equal versus proportional representation, yet 49 of the 50 state legislatures in the U.S. operate on the bicameral system. Modeled after the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom, early American colonies often had this design. The lower house was created as a chamber dedicated to the “commoner” and average man in society, while the upper house was created as a chamber dedicated purely to the richest upper echelon of society. However, even the lower chambers, supposedly dedicated to the common man, were only made up of representatives voted for by white male landowners which was already inherently an upper class of society. These classist roots have carried on through modern day with only one state having opted for the unicameral system: Nebraska.

When most people think of Nebraska they think of flat countryside overflowing with bushels upon bushels of corn. When geeky historical junkies think of Nebraska they think of George W. Norris. George Norris was an American politician who served in the United States Congress for 40 years, from 1903-1943. After a visit to Australia, Norris became disillusioned with the bicameral system. While speaking to the Parliament of Queensland in Australia, Norris learned about the unicameral system and its historical roots. After returning to the United States in 1931, Norris advocated for the abolishment of the bicameral system on the state level; he argued that it was modeled after the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and House of Commons and, therefore, was inherently aristocratic and unequal for the people. While the issue was voted on by several states, only Norris’ home state of Nebraska implemented the unicameral legislature.

The argument for the unicameral system is more than just the issue of its classist history — it’s an issue of efficiency. The unicameral system is superior as a decision making process than the bicameral system. Often, bills will pass one chamber but will go on to die in the other – either unable to gather enough support, or aren’t considered high-status enough to be prioritized for a vote. In a unicameral system, the proverbial red-tape is cut; bills don’t need to worry about being stuck in an endless purgatory of existence. Since representatives in both the upper and lower house represent overlapping constituencies, there is no reason that legislators representing the same constituency should be voting differently. The elimination of one chamber rids useless historical legislative procedure and creates more simplicity in the process. The bicameral system relies on getting support from senior party leaders to get a bill to be prioritized or voted on, which is especially difficult for newcomers in the legislature and perpetuates an outdated system dependent on seniority. Without a second chamber and needing to gain support from the party brass, freshman legislators are more effectively able to introduce bills that are important to them and their district, and need not worry about the bill never being voted on or gathering any kind of support for a bill.

The complex and opaque legislative process of a bicameral system is a breeding ground for corruption. Odd procedures and processes of how a bill is passed give an unfair advantage to those with the time, money, and the power to learn about and involve themselves in the system. Moving dark money through lobbying and campaign donations is made easier when hidden in an elaborate legislative system.

Responsibility is a word that is fargone removed from the vocabulary of seasoned politicians. Power and retaining influence reign supreme. A bicameral legislature enables this behavior. When your district’s legislator isn’t properly doing their job, passing bills or gathering funding for your district, they often brush it off as ‘out of their control.’ They will default to a list of excuses that are, to be fair, sometimes valid, such as the bill they introduced being stuck in the other chamber of the legislature. However, politicians also abuse the knowledge that a bill may not pass the other chamber. Too often, a politician is personally against a bill, but knows voting a certain way will gain them more support. If they know that the bill will or will not pass the other chamber, they can vote in a way that is contrary to what they think is right. With a unicameral legislature, the ability to pin inefficiencies on another chamber is eradicated, and legislators have more responsibility to vote the way they believe is right when the stakes are higher in a one chamber congress. Additionally, with one representative per district, it’s easier to know who your representative is and who to contact for your issues which encourages civic engagement — something lacking in our current system.

Government, at the end of the day, is in service to the people. Efficiency is a priority, but remaining economical is also important to citizens. One of the most common complaints of citizens is government wastage. The unicameral system is far more economical and costs a fraction of what’s spent on bicameral legislature, since it doesn’t need to bear the price of an unnecessary chamber. A 1999 study by the Minnesota House Research Department found that abolishing one chamber in the state’s legislature would save $20 million (or ~$35,750,000 per year accounting for inflation).

The biggest argument in opposition to unicameral legislatures is checks and balances. People in support of bicameral legislatures argue that splitting power between two houses helps avoid “mob rule.” Firstly, this argument is ridiculous because the Governor maintains the right to veto any bill he disagrees with, while the courts maintain jurisdiction to uphold or strike down the legality of any law. Secondly, the term “mob rule” has historically been used to keep the masses in their place. The majority of a group wanting something is the bedrock that democracy is founded on, and acting as if it is something that would disenfranchise others when many checks and balances are already in place is ridiculous fear mongering.

Abolishing the bicameral system on the state level would increase efficiency, further transparency efforts, bolster civic engagement, and save states tens of millions of dollars every year. Bicameral legislatures are outdated classist structures that have no place in modern American politics.