QOD — Rethinking the Legislature Edition
The State of Maine is taking steps to regorganize its legislature from a bicameral body to a unicameral body. This measure actually passed their House yesterday. They say they are doing this to save money — $11M per year.
So here’s the questions:
1. At the state level do you think that a unicameral legislature could be a Good Government initiative? (Yglesias — who inspired this QOD — thinks yes.)
2. What would Delaware government look like with a unicameral body?
Tags: QOD
No, it hasn’t brought any great value to Nebraska. It only takes away from deliberation, encourages hasty decision making, decreases representation, and takes us one step further from our founding principles.
A bicameral legislature insures that clear majority favors an issue. It allows review and reflection which would be lacking otherwise. The real reform would be to add initiative and referendum.
“The real reform would be to add initiative and referendum.”
I used to think so, too, but the example of California changed my mind. I’m now in favor of initiative — allowing citizen-authored bills into legislative deliberation — but referendum has made a complete mess of that state.
I’d be cool with a combination of initiative and a unicameral legislature. I’m 100% with Geezer on initiative v. referendum, for the exact same reason.
Both our Senate districts and House districts are made up entities anyway; the national bicameral legislature was done in part to provide for the federalist model of national government and to balance out power between the big and small states. I see no reason why we couldn’t save a few bucks in Delaware and do someting like that.
“A bicameral legislature insures that clear majority favors an issue”
Is that why the Gay Rights legislation has been bogged down in the Senate for almost a decade when a majority in Delaware wanted it? Changes the rules to take away power from certain individuals within the legislative body would go further in advancing our state democracy than just having a bicameral legislature.
Referendums for the past thirty years have just about bankrupted California, ruined one of the best school systems in the world, and generally wrought havoc with the world’s sixth, or is it seventh, economy. Human nature being what it is, nobody wants to pay, but they sure want their “socialistic” services. Please, no referendums in Delaware.
I also wonder if a unicameral government would simply enable the “Delaware Way” folks and make it even easier for them. One stop shopping for lobbyists, private interests, etc. Granted, our Senate has been the pits for a while now, but having a separate House seems to be working well at the moment. It’s probably a good idea in tiny Delaware to dilute and spread the power centers as much as possible.
Referendums are great if you are only concerned about wedge issues.
“Referendums for the past thirty years have just about bankrupted California…”
Most referenda in California are negated by the courts, usually because of some supposed flaw in the phraseology of a particular referendum. Somewhat along the lines of “what the defnition of ‘is’ is.”
Isn’t a referendum purely democratic?
Socialism and associated over-spending has destroyed California…and now it’s heading east.
So David, are you advocating bicameral bodies at the county and local level to in order to provide that a “that clear majority favors an issue?” Just what we need – another layer of government. I thought the GOP was for less government, not more.
Actually, Nebraska’s legislature (they call themselves “Senator” and the elections are non-partisan) has worked very well. The salaries are low ($12K/year), there are term-limits (so no jumping from one chamber to the other), and the sessions are limited to either 60 days in election years or 90 days in odd-numbered years.
As for initiative, that has also ruined CA (look at Prop 13 which was citizen-initiated). That began the financial slide that CA currently is on.
Wrong again Rick. I’m not interested in taking you on as a project right now, because you seem far too stupid and in love with GOP nonsense to redeem without a significant invest in time, but you might want to look into some self-study.
Here, for example. Have fun.
I, for one will be ignoring your assinine drivel from here on out.
Would rather have referendum ability and eliminating the ability for corporations to donate to political campaigns.
One legislative body would allow for easier corruption.
City and County Council are both unicameral and (with the exception of the actual persons serving on both), it works well enough. A unicameral body would eliminate the game playing between the two chambers in Delaware. I agree, unicameral with initiatves would be a way to go.
Great source!!!
Even the largest democratic state, given the choice, will vote for lower taxes . How unpatriotic.
Initiative
Referendum
Recall
Inspector General
Taxpayer Bill of Rights
Term Limits
Thanks, Mike Protack
Referenda are definitely out since the California experience has been so horrific. And citizen initiatives can’t turn out to be off the books budgeting, either. So if it will cost money, the source of the revenue have to be part of the initiative and if it will save money a plan to return it to citizens has to be part of the thing. We can’t call for, say, class sizes of 12 students without an accompanying deal to pay for it.
I also wonder if a unicameral government would simply enable the “Delaware Way” folks and make it even easier for them.
I wonder about this too. But I also imagine that it ought to be easier to watch these guys if it was one body and fewer of them.
If referendum is the problem in CA then why is it not in the other 30 states? NY and NJ don’t have referendum. Don’t they have a similar problem? The with CA problem started with voters electing liberals who gerrymandered the state. CA is one of 5 states without a balanced budget amendment. The voters do share in the blame in that they voted for big spenders. That has nothing to do with Initiative and Referendum and is duplicated in non I&R states.
The only way out will be by referendum. The politicians will not reform the reapportionment process. I & R is the one check that has allowed CA to remain livable.
“Wedge issues” are legitimate issues that sometimes are avoided by the politicians. Not avoiding them is good not bad.
Most initiative items are not “wedge issues” but issues overlooked by the political class.
As for the local governments being unicameral, their power is limited. They can not do the damage the state does. The state ultimately has a say over a lot of issues such as charter changes, types of taxes, and expansions of county power.
The counties and cities already have oversight. I do favor adding I & R to the local level. We had it in Wilmington early last century and non-binding I&R has resolved important issues.
Protack – TABOR has crippled Colorado. Repairing the damage that TABOR brought on only began a few years ago. And the author of TABOR was a GOP buffoon (just google Doug Bruce Colorado) who lost his primary because his consituents were embarrassed by him. No, TABOR is not the way to go.
And what would an IG do? Replace the Auditor? Would the IG be appointed or elected? Nice sound bites, but no substance (sort of like your candidacies for office).
“I, for one will be ignoring your assinine drivel from here on out.”….jason330
Thank God for small mercies.
David, David, David. Thank you for amusing me today (it was a bit boring in the office). So conservatives don’t gerrymander? That is so good to know.
And wedge issues such as same sex marriage and equal rights should not be subject to a vote – how can you justify legislating morals or discrimination? Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe that the GLBT community deserves equal rights.
What we need is a limited indirect initiative process that mandates the legislature to act on certain legislation. Basically, if enough people sign a petition, a bill must be brought forth for a vote. It would have to be a constitutional amendment.
a limited indirect initiative process
If we are all coming out to the polls, why not vote on the actual bill?
They have always been subject to a vote. The elected legislature established the laws.
No, I do not believe the GLBT community deserves equal rights based upon orientation, however was it not the initiative process that first got momentum behind HB 5 type legislation? Was not Domestic Partnership an initiative? It is not about a single issue.
Prop 13 ruined CA? No, it saved it from ruin. It took 30 years to work around it and ruin it. CA is not under taxed. It is over spent. To be frank CA will be just fine. They will make tough decisions and run a government like they are supposed to. They would only get further in hock like NJ and NY if they did not have I & R.
“If we are all coming out to the polls, why not vote on the actual bill?”
I personally believe that a democratic republic is preferable to direct democracy, with California being the best example.
“Isn’t a referendum purely democratic?”
Only if the same voters are tasked with solving the problems referendums have created.
Since there are now two Republicans commenting here, why don’t you boys, in the immortal words of Fletch, go down to the gym and pump each other?
California’s current budget woes can be very much traced back to Prop 13. It limited the revenues from property taxes while Californians kept going to the polls to spend more money on more programs. And since they can borrow money for operations, California politicians were delighted to let their citizens think that they could have it all for nothing. Now it’s time to pay the piper.
“Several commentators have noted that the use of referenda to amend constitutions has so tied the government to a mishmash of popular demands as to render the government unworkable. The Economist has made this point about the State of California, which has passed so many referenda restricting the ability of the state government to tax the people and pass the budget that the state has become effectively ungovernable. Calls for an entirely new California constitution have been made. ”
Let’s see, David the Ignorant or The Economist magazine? Which should I believe?
Warren Buffett got then- campaigning for Gov Arnold in trouble for noting that Prop 13 was not sensible.
I’m thinking about M. McKain’s comment@4:
national bicameral legislature was done in part to provide for the federalist model of national government and to balance out power between the big and small states
Are there any real balancing functions now in the current bicameral state organization that would be eliminated with a unicameral body?
I simply cannot believe that I agree with Burris.
My God. Are there four horseman in the sky?
Cassandra…
Not really. If Delaware had a true Senate that was modeled after the US Senate, then it would have only 6 members (i.e. 2 Senators for each county).
David, there is no initiative process in DE, so what the hell are you talking about? Actually, the first GLBT equal rights legislation was passed by the Wisconsin legislature. In fact, the only initiatives have been those of homophobic bigots such as you to repeal equal rights legislation.
So David, please tell us what it’s like being the African-American Anita Bryant? Do your feet hurt when you wear those red pumps or do you prefer flats? And do you don a brunette wig when you sing?
“Isn’t a referendum purely democratic?”
“Only if the same voters are tasked with solving the problems referendums have created.“…geezer
What?
California, passed Domestic partnership by initiative. It was one of the first jurisdictions to make that error.
There is DE legislation in the works to get it. There is no legislation either drafted or pending to abolish one house. Which should we be discussing?
What I was referring to was the fact that Wilmington had it last century. It was quietly dropped in a charter revision after WW2.
Delaware Dem, we used to have representation per county but the personal agenda of Earl Warren expressed in Baker v. Carr changed that.
“My God. Are there four horseman in the sky?
Horsemen with an ‘e,’ you idiot liberal moonbat traitor!
(does that help restore balance to the universe?)
“Since there are now two Republicans commenting here, why don’t you boys, in the immortal words of Fletch, go down to the gym and pump each other?”…geezer
The idea sort of turns you on, right Geezer?
California, passed Domestic partnership by initiative.
This is wrong. This was a long-term legislative initiative. Religious bigots tried to get a repeal on the initiative ballot and quite failed at that.
The legislature passed Civil Unions to replace it in 2005. Don’t confuse the two.
I find it quite funny that liberals use the circumstance of people telling their government overwhelmingly to live within its means in a heavily overtaxed state as a reason to scrap the ability to have the public voice their opinion.
Don’t confuse the two.
As always, you have no idea what you are talking about. CA passed legislation starting in 1999 or so and kept expanding it until a massive expansion in 2005. The only referenda here have been tried by the religious bigots to end the domestic partnership legislation.
I find it quite funny that liberals use the circumstance of people telling their government overwhelmingly to live within its means in a heavily overtaxed state
Yeah, what you need to read up on are the many, many referenda that have been passed by CA citizens that have required the state to spend more money. They never vote for new revenues to pay for everything they want.
Then things they didn’t vote for get cut to balance it out.. like California is forced to do right now.
It is balancing out, maybe in the future they will have a pay as you go clause in the referendum process to eliminate such problems.
You don’t have to scrap the whole system just because it doesn’t completely work the first time. Delaware is by no means California. We don’t have to mirror their system. Take what works, fix what doesn’t.
California is one of the most heavily taxed states in the country. Their cost of living is outrageous compared to other states. I don’t blame them for saying no.
Then things they didn’t vote for get cut to balance it out.
This is not how it works. If you pass a referendum then it is law. That means that the spending you just voted for is mandatory. You can’t cut it without a law or other referendum to do just that.
California may be heavily taxed, but its citizens enjoy a remarkable quality of life, a remarkably generous range of services and the infrastructure to have made it the 7th or 8th largest economy on the planet. This makes its citizens spoiled children for requiring the world and not raising the money to pay for it.
For cassandra m:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/21/warnings-from-the-left-coast/
cR: Is that a joke? Tom McClintock preaching his gospel of unregulated growth? Read that link and you’ll see why this guy has been rejected repeatedly by statewide voters.
From the Moonie Times, no less. McClintock is part of California’s problem — definitely not interested in any solutions whatsoever.
But he’s good at the Something for Nothing pitch which makes him am OG GOP.
The things that they didn’t vote in get cut, like the things the legislature can change. That is what they are doing now, that is how it is working as we speak.
Just like how a parent teaches a kid. If you want this, then you can’t have that. You have to pick or choose which is more important to you.
Bottom line: California is losing population, losing their bond rating and losing their wealth. You can’t spend money you don’t have.
But they’ve been spending money they don’t have for decades AND financing as much as they could get away with via borrowing. They’re finally paying the piper for living the Something for Nothing life.
It isn’t helping them that they are one of the Ground Zeros for the housing meltdown (and the bubble), either.
“You can’t spend money you don’t have.”
California provides us a lesson, all right — the danger of the anti-tax GOP “starve the beast” position. Delawareans — to return to a topic of far more relevance than California — have been calling for smaller government for years, but when you ask anyone which government services should be abolished, you hear crickets.
In California, voters starved the beast without identifying which services should be ended. Sure, you can’t spend money you don’t have. But you end up with chaos.
Unless, of course, chaos is your goal, in which case you should be rejoicing. California is another example of what your political philosophies will actually achieve.