I believe a unicameral, or dromedary, legislature is preferable to a bicameral, or Bactrian, legislature.
Every plan the FFs proposed at the Constitutional Convention included a bicameral legislature of some form or other -- but apparently that was because the only available model for a national legislature was the bicameral British Parliament.
49 of 50 states have two-house legislatures, even though the thinking of the "Great Compromise" does not apply -- the counties are not to the states as the states to the nation -- the "state senate" is always elected in the same way as the state equivalent of the HoR, only with larger districts, all of equal population. It doesn't make any sense.
Yes, a one-house legislature can more easily make mistakes -- but it can also more easily correct mistakes. Anything that makes legislation harder to enact, also makes legislation harder to repeal.
Every plan the FFs proposed at the Constitutional Convention included a bicameral legislature of some form or other -- but apparently that was because the only available model for a national legislature was the bicameral British Parliament.
49 of 50 states have two-house legislatures, even though the thinking of the "Great Compromise" does not apply -- the counties are not to the states as the states to the nation -- the "state senate" is always elected in the same way as the state equivalent of the HoR, only with larger districts, all of equal population. It doesn't make any sense.
Yes, a one-house legislature can more easily make mistakes -- but it can also more easily correct mistakes. Anything that makes legislation harder to enact, also makes legislation harder to repeal.