Would you support switching to a Unicameral legislature?

Direct democracy.

Such is why I disdain the fact that much of the legislation that comes out of California is considered de facto Federal law, and eventually becomes such in its due time.

~shrug~

Simply put, no. It's a dumb system, and this "proportional representation" idea sounds equally stupid, if it gives parties the right to put whoever in office when they get seats assigned to them.

You could give better arguments than saying "Stupid idea is stupid", which is a false attempt at a truism that assumes that it's stupid. I already explained the issue with gerrymandering and winner-take-all.

Do you want to start a new thread?

edited 22nd Sep '11 6:55:42 PM by abstractematics

And the difference to now is...? The individuals in power now tow the party lines for the most part. When they don't there are usually some sort consequences. In the case of proportional representation, you are voting for the party. The individuals within said party are like-minded. If they think a different way, they have a diffent party. In short, you know who you are voting for more than if you do what we have now.

edited 22nd Sep '11 6:54:12 PM by FFShinra

It's stupid because either the small population areas or large population areas lose out. At least with a bicameral legislature each area can have a place where it's voice is heard with effective weight.

And, the "if they didn't agree with the byline they'd switch parties" idea would work if we had real alternate parties in the US...

Proportional voting has nothing to do with unicameralism. I just wanted it for the House whatever happens.

And USAF, that would be true ONLY if proportional voting was in place. In a winner take all system you NEED the massive political machines to even get a seat which is why no one ever actually switches parties unless they know the other side will take them.

You really don't understand how state legislature works?

Both houses of a state legislature must be proportionally represented. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to step in to fix states that have serious imbalances in representation.

In any case, because of Dhilon's Rule (which I don't necessarily agree with entirely), states are unitary governments. The implication is that while federal government is composed of its states, the states are composed of its citizens, not its counties or cities. The Conneticut Compromise argument of equal representation to appease smaller states, population-based representation to appease the larger states does not carry over to state level.

Also, we do have "real" alternate parties, but they keep getting shut out by the current electoral system.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:03:47 PM by abstractematics

I know proportional voting has nothing to do with unicameral legislature.

I just think both ideas would be worse than the current system.

And the reasons you give for why it would be actually make no sense.

Didn't catch it before. Thanks!

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:09:19 PM by FFShinra

@FF: I did post links to the Wikipedia articles on places that actually use tricameralism (and tetracameralism).

I wish we did do proportional representation. At least then minor parties would have some degree of relevance in the federal government. And then we could vote in some pirates like Deutschland did.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:09:14 PM by Balmung

I take it that we should move the discussion on election systems to a new thread?

Probably.

How does it not make sense? A single legislature will shaft some of the States no matter how its set up. A dual legislature gives all the States some amount of control in the Federal Government.

I thought for the past page we were talking about the states? I already said that bicameral is more desirable in federal systems than in unitary systems. I even said that getting rid of the Senate is difficult.

~shrug~

I just mean in general. In State Governments you just replace "States" with "counties" in the "who's getting shafted" department.

State Senates do not work like that. As was already stated.

States make counties; the U.S. does not make states. The argument of respecting each state works better for the national legislature because we treat states as sovereign. Not so within a state. We want state legislators to represent people, not counties. Counties are already required to be balanced in population, so there's no point.

And what exactly is the difference between a state lower house and a state senate? Imagine arbitrarily dividing your city council or your company's or university's senate in halves for no reason at all.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:31:05 PM by abstractematics

Hm. And this is why State Governments annoy me. No consistency.

~shrug~

If it works, it works. Keep it the fuck away from the Federal Government and I don't care...

State governments are important, if only they function right. At the end of the day, states have the power to change the whole nation if enough of them group together.

The way I see it, the problem with multicameralism as we have now is you need unanimous consent. I don't mean within a house, but if even one house out of however many vetoes a bill or an act, it fails to pass. If you arbitrarily divide a legislative house in two halves, that's exactly what happens: you need majority of each house instead of majority of the whole legislature, which is frustrating and leads to deadlocks and opportunity to essentially sabotage lawmaking process.

And another note, I think the states made a mistake when they directly copied the federal government's model, because states don't work the same way.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:35:16 PM by abstractematics

Yep, and the unicameral we have here cuts down on that legislative deadlock. Most other states will never switch to a unicameral unless it goes to direct election because otherwise, politicians would have to voluntarily risk giving up their seats in the switch from a bicameral.

Also, counties aren't represented individually, there are legislative districts. Some contain several less populous counties, and others are one of many districts in the more populous counties. The idea is that each district contains a roughly equal population, so each unit already has equal say.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:48:58 PM by Balmung

If we merge the two houses, then they get to keep all of their seats. That's useful in legislatures that are too small for the population size.

Huh, I thought counties were balanced because some cities are packed enough to make entire counties.

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:52:24 PM by abstractematics

Thread Hop:

I don't think the structure of the US congress is really the problem so I would say no to switching.

Although increasing the number of total seats in congress would make some sense to me (afterall, US population is quite large but the number of representatives is pretty low at a per capita rate).

I don't really think it worth it for America to re-open the Senate/House structure because of population woes. They've a lot of states with virtually no people in comparison to places like California.

Not here at any rate. However, Omaha has several legislative districts. On the other hand, it'll never grow past the county line (though the metropolitan area will). Dunno about the number of seats. We have 49 seats and no provision to add more.

Any thoughts on state governments?

edited 22nd Sep '11 7:58:59 PM by Balmung

It's fixed because back in the early 20th Century they decided it wasn't worth the money to continually expand infrastructure to fit all the necessary seats, so they just set a ratio and were done with it...

^^ I'm pretty fuzzy on state politics. Are they all the same? Also are the parties strictly aligned with the federal versions (I was under the impression they were not)?

From my current impression, I don't think they need to be changed. I think what needs to change is, perhaps, what I hear about rampant gerrymandering. A common rule I've seen to block that sort of event is to do it every 10 years (or each census), off-cycle from elections, by a non-partisan committee. The other way to get around it is for proportional representation.

^ Yeah, it's fixed, but in my opinion, I think it would help democracy to have more officials. Politicians themselves don't really cost a lot of money despite all the yammering about their salaries and whatnot. An extra 100 guys costs you 20 million dollars, which is nothing in the larger scheme of things.

edited 22nd Sep '11 8:04:23 PM by breadloaf