Unicameral Legislatures Are Bad

Bad ideas, like good ideas recycle in history. After a while studying history you begin to see, if you are bright, that this is a syndrome. No matter how many times “unicameralism” is knocked down it comes right back regularly advanced by someone who just hasn’t checked the record or history or his common sense. It just seems like such a good idea that it is irresistible to various sorts of do-gooders. Mostly those who think a little tinkering with the system will substantially improve it, or remove its growing deficiencies.

Unicameralism was discussed extensively when the Republic was set up and it was rejected overwhelmingly, and not because of the need to balance small and large states either. It was rejected for the same common sense reason that witnesses are so effective in producing justice in courts of law. The Bible which I love to quote on all occasions, says, “Where two or more are in agreement, mountains can be moved” and other such references to the enormous value of “agreement” in producing truth and wisdom.

Well, when you apply that to government you see that checks and balances (though those words are not in the Constitution per se) are the heart of our system or any system of freedom. Two legislative houses, even if they were exact duplicates of each other would act differently and act as a check on each other to the benefit of freedom and justice. Now I hear that an otherwise seemingly commendable governor, named Jesse Ventura has been inexplicitly bitten with the bug of Unicameralism. Even the venerable and very wise Ben Franklin made the same mistake, which goes to show that great men make great mistakes, which is why we need division of powers even more.

Sure, its more efficient and even cheaper to have one legislative chamber instead of two but sometimes cheap is cheap and efficiency is not so efficient.