First, I must credit Bill Craig for his letter to the (Post Register) editor last Sunday, where he made this suggestion and reminded me of the idea. I first read about this idea in Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura’s book, Do I Stand Alone, and I thought it was great. The idea is in support of a unicameral state legislature, meaning only one state legislative chamber, rather than our current bicameral state legislature, where we pay for two state legislative chambers.
Reduced government cost is the biggest factor when considering whether to support slimming down to a unicameral legislature. We would be able to reduce the pay and operations costs for an entire legislative chamber. I understand we would pay some legislators more money for participating in more committees, but the savings should outweigh the benefits. Each year Idaho wastes money paying for redundant work performed by two legislative bodies, and Idahoans do not seem to have faith in any of our legislators to represent them. If we do not have faith that they represent us, why should we pay for twice as many unrepresentative legislators?
Other reasons governments slim down to a unicameral legislature is when one chamber tends to unfairly obstruct legislation, or one chamber tends to be ineffective. I don’t know that we can blame the Idaho House or Senate more than the other for being ineffective or obstructionist. However, I think we can agree that our single dominant political party uses the bicameral legislature as leverage to block things they disagree with. Two operating bodies make it easier to hide and block items than one operating body.
The upper chamber of most state legislatures was originally modeled after the United States Senate, so senate districts were drawn by geography rather than population (as is with house districts). The Supreme Court ruled against this practice in 1964, so states made their senate districts supposedly reflective of populations (like the house districts), but the senate seats are also prone to undemocratic gerrymandering. In fact one of the few differences between the Idaho house and senate seats are the terms served, so the senate is essentially a promotion for Idaho lawmakers, without increased responsibility. Do you think any of our legislators deserve such a paid promotion?
One of the reasons to not switch from bicameral to unicameral is that large urban centers can wield more influence in a single legislative chamber. This is a particular concern to Idahoans, where there is constant tension between those inside vs. outside the Boise metropolitan area. However, this is the same problem we have today with our more expensive bicameral legislature. The problem was fostered under this supposedly more democratic system, so perhaps we can initiate more fair representational changes by switching to a unicameral legislature. If we have the same problem regardless of how big our government is, why not at least switch to a smaller government and save money?
Keep in mind that most city councils were bicameral until the 20th century, so the idea of changing to unicameral is not foreign to American government. Nebraska is the only state to have switched to a unicameral legislature, though Jesse Ventura argued for Minnesota to also make the change. A unicameral legislature would make our lawmakers more accountable to the voters, because the buck could no longer be passed to “that other chamber”.
What do you think? Should Idaho stick with the bicameral legislature or slim down to a unicameral legislature?
Popularity: 11%
Related posts:
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Jesse Venture said in his book, in the part supporting unicameral legislatures, that a small minority in each political party controls all the other party members. We know this as the leadership from each party, and there’s nothing wrong with leadership, right?
Leadership is great until 10% of the legislators sit on 86% of the committees. What happens to a democracy when a few people wield such undue influence and pull the strings behind the scenes?
Ventura observed it was almost always those 10% of legislators who would visit him to do the deal making, because the others did not carry enough power to do any good.
Ventura noted that a bicameral system is critical for our federal government, but is wasteful and backwards at the state level.
Ventura also says a bicameral system would eliminate the political caucuses, where most of our legislation is created and agreed upon behind closed doors.
While I applaud the desire to save some cash….and this would most certainly do that, I like the added checks and balances a second chamber brings…..plus, it slows government down in alot of instances……that is a good thing in my book.
Here is a great little article on government power grabs. Read it and weep. Wait for the punch line at the very end of the story. Totally amazing:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317198,00.html
That link was awesome, an excellent read on the lunacies of our government!
However I disagree on the checks and balances part. I always understood checks and balances are found in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, not in splitting one branch into two halves.
Excellent link Mike, thanks. And oh so scary!! It’s amazing the gestapo methods that are being used throughout our country these days. I mean c’mon….arrested for standing on a sidewalk?? Or spending 2 years in jail for having pain meds, yet the guy had a vaild prescription? Everyone of those stories were shocking and we should all take notice and start standing up for not only OUR rights but for the rights of those around us.
Like I’ve been saying for quite awhile…our freedoms are slowly being stripped from us and nobody is even noticing it. It’s time we the people take back our country from our overzealous government.
America the free is not so free anymore.
Government can make more sense and cost less with Idaho Fair Elections Act in place. For details fp1.centurytel.net/democracy/
Bart Davis was against it last session. What will he do this session, assuming people like you ask him to hear the bill and send it to the Senate.