Should state legislatures be unicameral?

[Greedo punched first]

Like Nebraska?

We know the senate exists to give smaller states a bigger voice, but why do states need a senate?
Only one is needed.

To give a bigger voice to less populated regions in a state. Let the States decide whether their legislatures are unicameral or not.

[Greedo punched first]

My home state of California is so hard to govern because of its size and population. Would making it legislature unicameral do help or harm?

[Greedo punched first]

and for what's worth, we kind of like it.

Most people tend not to put a lot of thought into process arguments such as these. People will accept what generally is and generally accept what is given to them, with some exceptions of course. The average voter probably has no idea what the difference between unicameral and bicameral is. In virtually any state, you could snap your fingers and make a state unicameral and the average person wouldn't know the difference except on having a more streamlined and effective legislature.

(Unfortunately, the people of Nebraska didn't share the viewpoint of Ernie Chambers' lifelong movement, despite a supermajority of the Nebraska Unicameral. )

District voting or proportional representation?

[Greedo punched first]

What about a nonpartisan upper house with members who serve longer terms than the lower house in order to provide more careful scrutiny of legislation that is more independent and less partisan, where the upper house uses something other than FPTP? This would provide a check to lower houses with shorter terms. Is this a good idea or not?

[Greedo punched first]

Honestly the only check and balance that is absolutely necessary is an independent judicial system. After that, history has shown that they produce gridlock and kludges.

All legislatures should be unicameral, and also if PR is not a possibility than multi-member districts should be abolished too. In NJ everyone has 3 state legislators (1 Senator and 2 Assemblymen) which is not only unnecessary but confusing.

PR is valuable, but I personally think that if citizens had only one woman or man who represents them in the state capitol that they would have a more direct channel into state politics, while also giving state legislators the higher profile that they really deserve.

Would it be good to make California's legislature unicameral?

[Greedo punched first]

District voting or proportional representation?

I'm partial to something beyond simple FPTP. I like MMP the best overall, but IRV would be fine as well. However, that's a different subject beyond the basic structure of government.

No, strong checks and balances are useful. However, I'd prefer to have the senators elected by county (which was declared unconstitutional in 1964).

And people thought gerrymandering was bad? Rural interests above all else. A slight D-leaning state like Nevada would have a Republican Senate essentially etched in stone. Why should Loving County, TX with its total population of 82 get the same representation as Harris County and its population of over 4.5 million? I don't understand that logic except for partisan advantage.

Would it be good to make California's legislature unicameral?

I don't think bicameralism makes any sense at all in California. Personally, I would go one step further and make California a parliamentary system. As noted above, the only real necessary check and balance is a completely independent judiciary. I'd much rather have Jerry Brown as Premier of a unicameral legislature than the current system.
[/quote]I guess I will go with nonpartisan unicameral with IRV. I'm from a partisan Republican voting neighborhood in Northwestern Orange County and want to reduce partisanship.