A one-house legislature is better than a two-house legislature

pecksniff

Literotica Guru
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Posts
22,077
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.
 
I believe a unicameral, or dromedary, legislature is preferable to a bicameral, or Bactrian, legislature.

The un-American authoritarian shocks nobody. :rolleyes:

You have dozens of nations to choose from, move to one of them please.
 
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.

This is the most important thing.

What's the point of two houses anyway?
 
This is the most important thing.

What's the point of two houses anyway?

To pump the breaks on democracy and force cooperation and bipartisanship at a federal level.

THAT is the most important thing for those of us who aren't authoritarians.
 
To pump the breaks on democracy and force cooperation and bipartisanship at a federal level.

THAT is the most important thing for those of us who aren't authoritarians.

You realize "partisanship" wasn't even a thing in 1787?
 
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.

Legislation should be hard to enact. It usually is going to involve some restriction on behavior or freedom. If you can't get a consensus, you shouldn't be passing it.
 
You do realize how little sense that makes right Cuban?

To pump the breaks on democracy and force cooperation and bipartisanship at a federal level.

THAT is the most important thing for those of us who aren't authoritarians.

No, its important to a small group of bitches who can't keep their voices down. Which I suppose you could define as "those of us" but that group is so small that humoring them is beyond stupid.
 
Half the countries in the world with examples on all continents have uni-cameral legislatures. Many started that way but became bi-cameral, almost without exception due to conservative parties wishing to increase patronage and protect rural interests.

The US Congress developed from a uni-cameral Constitutional Congress into the present arrangement precisely to appease rural preferences.
 
You do realize how little sense that makes right Cuban?

Cuban? I'm not the authoritarian control freak here comrade.

And it makes perfect sense to those of us who aren't part of that authoritarian mindset.

No, its important to a small group of bitches who can't keep their voices down. Which I suppose you could define as "those of us" but that group is so small that humoring them is beyond stupid.

Stay mad I won't lick the boot that you do. :)
 
Half the countries in the world with examples on all continents have uni-cameral legislatures. Many started that way but became bi-cameral, almost without exception due to conservative parties wishing to increase patronage and protect rural interests.

The US Congress developed from a uni-cameral Constitutional Congress into the present arrangement precisely to appease rural preferences.

Not in the USA.

Because unions of states it wasn't rural preference....but state preferences.

House is for the people, senate is for the states.
 
Sure it was.

It just hadn't been formally developed as it is today.

No, they didn't even have the concept that there would be political parties in the Congress they were designing. (There was hardly such a thing, then, as a regular party system in the British Parliament that was their only model.) The Federalist deals with "faction," but that's not at all the same thing.
 
Last edited:
No, they didn't even have the concept that there would be political parties in the Congress they were designing. (There was hardly such a thing, then, in the British Parliament that was their only model.) The Federalist deals with "faction," but that's not at all the same thing.

Again, "faction" is exactly the same thing.

Groups with differing interest were not a new concept in politics and the FF's knew damn well it was going to happen.

They just didn't know what precise form it would be taking. It hadn't been developed, but it didn't take long.
 
Again, "faction" is exactly the same thing.

Groups with differing interest were not a new concept in politics and the FF's knew damn well it was going to happen.

They just didn't know what precise form it would be taking. It hadn't been developed, but it didn't take long.

Well, they certainly didn't create the Senate for the sake of "bipartisanship" in the sense you're using the term. It was mainly because of a fear by the little states that the big ones like Virginia would overwhelm them.
 
Again, "faction" is exactly the same thing.

Groups with differing interest were not a new concept in politics and the FF's knew damn well it was going to happen.

They just didn't know what precise form it would be taking. It hadn't been developed, but it didn't take long.

Funny how the Left thinks that technology has made them smarter than the FF
when in fact it seems to have had the exact opposite effect.

Why bother to study, learn and apply reason when
what you "believe" is just a Google away?
 
Funny how the Left thinks that technology has made them smarter than the FF
when in fact it seems to have had the exact opposite effect.

Why bother to study, learn and apply reason when
what you "believe" is just a Google away?

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings" :rolleyes:
 
One House to placate the mob and like their passions, its term of service is fleeting.

One Senate to cool the passions of the mob and (originally) to protect
the nation from the mob and to represent the needs of the states.
To this end, the term of service was made longer, more stable.

And then, for the worst reasons imaginable, the Senate was
taken away from the States and turned over to the mob
and now the demand is to eliminate that altogether
and just let pitchforks and torches rule...

Mobs are not a collection of reason,
deliberation and restraint.
They are passion
emboldened.

A mob is more likely to destroy than to build.
We see this now in entrenched polity and antipathy.
We have polarized into hands out for handouts and their targets.
The greatest anger of the mob is directed at those targeted for handouts.

A mob is not a self-reflective body and that is exactly why the FF had a check on it...
 
As long as we allow retards to vote...our Government will remain broken. As long as people choose to believe blatant lies...we are doomed
 
It is the mob itself which has fought long and hard to allow retards to vote.

ANY impediment to voting is regarded as some sort of -ism.

It is clear too, that the mob has one favored party
which demands the absolute fealty of
the retarded (i.e., the pandered).

Unfortunately, its one goal seems to be not to elevate them,
but to rather further and forever retard them in order
to maintain the power to loot the targeted...
 
I believe a unicameral, or dromedary, legislature is preferable to a bicameral, or Bactrian, legislature...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.
The value of hadding added layers of bureacracy to this process is to keep change glacial. As you said, a one house legislature can more easily make mistakes, and considering the force of the State, those mistakes are more likely to cost lives.

But, what exactly is the benefit? I have a hard time believing that you'd be making this argument under the last president - have you thought through how it would feel to have a Republican President ramming through all of their legislation just through one chamber of Congress? It sounds a lot more like fascism when it's the other party doing it, doesn't it?
 
I think pecker prefers a Politburo...


That's just how he (she?) comes off across a broad spectrum of board replies.
 
Back
Top