Bicameralism

[JamesHackerMP]

I put this thread under this topic because it seemed more 'theoretical" than directly applicable to current events.

In another thread, some of you were talking about the Canadian Senate.  I'm not trying to advise Canadians what to do about their own government here, God knows that would be a faux pas as they say in Quebec, but it got me thinking.  When and where, exactly, is an upper house necessary and even productive? In what situations is it better to not have one?

One of our states (Nebraska) got rid of its lower house, deciding that a unicameral legislature would be more democratic.  New Zealand abolished its upper house, but Australia didn't.  (The Australian senate has quite a bit of power).  In the UK, the Lords is actually useful as an upper house according to the Britons I have talked to.  Even though it's appointed as is your Senate, its composition is a bit different and allows it to give some apolitical scrutiny to certain matters.

[-TSS-]

Bicameralism is the form of parliamentarism for countries which have a federal structure such as the USA, Canada or Australia. The so-called upper chamber represents the regions of the federation while the so-called lower chamber represents the population as whole.

What I don't understand is why do many European countries which are unitary also need a second chamber. The UK is not a good example with their House of Lords as they are slow at ridding themselves of vestiges of the past but unitary countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy all have bicameral parliaments.

 

[overthere]

I was not aware that the Canadian Senate represented the regions of the country.  When did that start?

[-TSS-]

You can also ask when does a country need to federal rather than unitary. Canada, USA and Australia are extremely vast countries. The idea of them being other than federal is just unthinkable.

Some countries are very artificial entities consisting of various ethnic and religious groups. Or even lingual ones such as Belgium.

Japan is a country which is relatively compact and has a very large size of population. It is unitary and works perfectly that way.

Austria is a much smaller country than Japan and Austria is still relatively homogenous despite all the recent immigration. Yet Austria has a federal system of government.

 

 

[H10]

On 1/22/2017 at 2:29 PM, overthere said:

I was not aware that the Canadian Senate represented the regions of the country.  When did that start?

Where you living in a cave during the duffee trial?  He got in trouble because he was pretending to live in PEI or some rural crap hole out east or west when he lived in Ontario because he was appointed as a maritime senator.  Can't do that.  Senators represent provinces in Canada.

[H10]

On 1/22/2017 at 9:46 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

I put this thread under this topic because it seemed more 'theoretical" than directly applicable to current events.

In another thread, some of you were talking about the Canadian Senate.  I'm not trying to advise Canadians what to do about their own government here, God knows that would be a faux pas as they say in Quebec, but it got me thinking.  When and where, exactly, is an upper house necessary and even productive? In what situations is it better to not have one?

One of our states (Nebraska) got rid of its lower house, deciding that a unicameral legislature would be more democratic.  New Zealand abolished its upper house, but Australia didn't.  (The Australian senate has quite a bit of power).  In the UK, the Lords is actually useful as an upper house according to the Britons I have talked to.  Even though it's appointed as is your Senate, its composition is a bit different and allows it to give some apolitical scrutiny to certain matters.

In my view, a bicarmel legislator is good when you have a relatively swing region with a large number of liberals and conservatives and a few in the middle with relatively equal numbers.  You don't want to live in a country like the USA with just 1 chamber of government who can ruin your life and represent just some fringe element in an off election.  Now Nebraska on the other hand is consistenly Republican, they don't really need a second chamber to just rubber stamp everything or slow things down.

 

Canada as a consistently liberal nation would bode well to get rid of the senate.  However, we also have an off election every now and then, so we elect conservative government maybe every once in a while.  It might be wise to have a senate so they don't do anything too wild as a check and balance, we all saw the destruction Harper did to the nation.

 

I think abolishing one house would be useful when you have a small nation where people generally agree and there are no real "Extremist" policies.  One that comes to mind is Jamaica.  They could easily abolish their senate or lower house without much change in the function of government as the parties are highly centrist.

[Bonam]

39 minutes ago, hernanday said:

In my view, a bicarmel legislator is good when you have a relatively swing region with a large number of liberals and conservatives and a few in the middle with relatively equal numbers.  You don't want to live in a country like the USA with just 1 chamber of government who can ruin your life and represent just some fringe element in an off election.  Now Nebraska on the other hand is consistenly Republican, they don't really need a second chamber to just rubber stamp everything or slow things down.

Canada as a consistently liberal nation would bode well to get rid of the senate.  However, we also have an off election every now and then, so we elect conservative government maybe every once in a while.  It might be wise to have a senate so they don't do anything too wild as a check and balance, we all saw the destruction Harper did to the nation.

I think abolishing one house would be useful when you have a small nation where people generally agree and there are no real "Extremist" policies.  One that comes to mind is Jamaica.  They could easily abolish their senate or lower house without much change in the function of government as the parties are highly centrist.

This neglects the fact that the political situation can change over time. A nation or state might be relatively on the same page with centrist parties today, but decades from now it may be more polarized (or vice versa). Government structures, including bicameralism, have evolved over time to remain stable through a wide range of political conditions. It makes no sense to remove checks and balances when it looks like everyone is on the same page, as they exist specifically for the times (which will inevitably come eventually) when there is greater division and uncertainty. 

[H10]

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

This neglects the fact that the political situation can change over time. A nation or state might be relatively on the same page with centrist parties today, but decades from now it may be more polarized (or vice versa). Government structures, including bicameralism, have evolved over time to remain stable through a wide range of political conditions. It makes no sense to remove checks and balances when it looks like everyone is on the same page, as they exist specifically for the times (which will inevitably come eventually) when there is greater division and uncertainty. 

Every statement neglects some consideration because no series of statement can possible anticipate every possible objection.

For instance, your statement neglects that it is possible that polarization may never occur at all or at such a statistically low probability that it may not be worth it, or that it may occur so slowly that another legislator gets added in over time to blunt the tide of polarization.

Bicameralism is not necessarily stable through a wide range of political conditions.  It is all ultimately arguable.  It can be useful to remove extra layers of bureaucracy when everyone is on the same page and the future looks like it clear ahead because bicameralism cannot stop changing demographics or slow them anyways.

[cybercoma]

.

Edited January 30, 2017 by cybercoma

[JamesHackerMP]

actually, what was the original purpose of a bicameral English Parliament? Why was it divided into one body of nobility &clergy and another, of community leaders?

[overthere]

On ‎23‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 4:01 PM, hernanday said:

Where you living in a cave during the duffee trial?  He got in trouble because he was pretending to live in PEI or some rural crap hole out east or west when he Senators lived in Ontario because he was appointed as a maritime senator.  Can't do that.  Senators represent provinces in Canada.

No, they do not represent provinces.  In reality they represent and mirror political parties.  Of course.

[overthere]

2 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

actually, what was the original purpose of a bicameral English Parliament? Why was it divided into one body of nobility &clergy and another, of community leaders?

It was really trilateral: the Crown, the House of Lords and the Commons.  It was a kind of uneasy deal between the King and a restive, fractious population.   The King though he ruled by divine right, and at the same time the commoners noted that he was powerful but vulnerable.  Until then, England was ruled by lords who were loyal or not to a King/Queen.  The House of Lords provided some supposed support to the Crown,and  tempered the powers of both the Commons and the King. 

 

In reality, in short order, the House of Commons ran it all.  The final turning point was perhaps the French Revolution- it settled it once and for all.  The Crown and the House of Lords could easily see their own fate just across the English Channel.  It was not a big stretch to see their necks in the noose, after what  happened to the ruling class of France.

[JamesHackerMP]

Something about the US state legislatures.

Because of several supreme court decisions, as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it's effectively illegal for a state legislature to have one body based on population, and the other not.  Of course, the NE house of Reps. was abolished long before that (1934) but with NE's population pretty evenly spread out, it likely didn't make any difference.  It had nothing to do with the party situation.  I doubt it was the same in 1934 as it is today.

[JamesHackerMP]

OK, I understand.  BUt that does not entirely answer my question.  Why was the division of the great council into two parliamentary bodies made in the first place? It started out as a unicameral Great Council.

[Peter F]

I believe in 1260-something, Simon de Montfort (Earl of somewhere) led a rebellion against king Henry II. Eventually the King and his family were captured. Simon de Montfort had the backing of most of the Nobles during this rebelion but once the King was captured many nobles became very suspicious of Simon de Montfort and started to support the King. However, the King being still a prisoner, Siimon de Montfort - without the Royal authority of the King, but in the name of the Council to the King (i.e. those who held the King captive) Summoned the Parliament. This summoning of parliament included the usual nobility but for the very first time also ordered/invited Burghers and Mayors and ordered the Sheriffs to also send two Knights from each county.  The idea being that Simon de Montfort felt he needed some support from somewhere other than the Nobility which appeared to be deserting him.  This Parliament actually did take place but of course the Nobility refused to debate with commoners ( in a move to undermine de Montfort support and also for the usual Nobility elitism that there is no way god iintended commoners to discuss management issues with their mighty selves) . That didn't seem to work as the Nobles were in no position to actually throw de Montfort out. So a Commons was formed for the non-nobles to also debate, separately, issues. Thus the House of Commons was formed. Again 1260-something. I believe that Edward the First formalized the concept and was the first actual King to summon a  parliament with the commons and lords ... 1274? 

An interesting thing is that in France around the same time, the French king himself started to pander support of the common folk (meaning town officials and lesser/former nobility)  in order to increase his power to withstand the Nobility of the land.   Sheriffs and Judges were dispatched throughout the land to take care of / speak for the Kings interest in all sorts of things that would normally have been of only local importance. The common folks turned to these local Royal Authority functionaries to inhibit the excesses of the Nobility and the Kings officials gladly helped them out. Thus the commoners  reinforced the power of the King as something to their own benefit. Eventually giving rise to the  French absolute monarchy. 

Feudal ages are a wonderful period to read about.

 

[Boges]

Bicameralism is a waste of money. 

[JamesHackerMP]

How so, Boges?

[Boges]

Provincial governments have done away with a second level of governments and seem to work fine. 

If they're not elected, they prove just to be a rubber stamp of the government of the day. This sober second thought rubbish is just a justification for the amount of money spent on people that have no accountability to the electorate. 

And in the US where they actually do elect their Senators, you have the problem of 2 Senators from a State with 500,000 people has the same power of a Senator represents several million people. How's that equitable? I get that the House represents population and the Senate represents regions but it doesn't serve the public properly IMHO

And going back to Canada's Senate. Because Canada only has 10 provinces, the regional aspect of the Senate is a joke. Quebec and Ontario dominate the Sentate and Western Canada is left in the lurch because the distribution doesn't reflect the current make up of the country. If they were honest about making the Senate regional like in the US, each province (INCLUDING PEI) should have the same number of Senators. 

[JamesHackerMP]

Well, if you said it wasn't equitable to do that in the states (same 2 senators per state) how would it be equitable in Canada?

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Well, if you said it wasn't equitable to do that in the states (same 2 senators per state) how would it be equitable in Canada?

I think either method is wrong-headed. But Canada bases it's "regional" distribution on a very old regional representation of Canada.

It would be like the US separating it's Senate into regions like New England, Mid-America, South, Midwest and West. Back in the early days of the US, that might have been a decent way to divide the country up into regions equitably. Not so now with California being the most populous state. 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Boges

[JamesHackerMP]

Right.  If I remember correctly, there are four regions of Canada: the West, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario.  All have to get an equal number of senators, right?

In my state it is a waste.  But not so at the federal level where it's necessary to retain the federal nature of the American union.  To maintain that federal nature, it's also necessary the Senate is more powerful than a lot of other upper houses around the world.

Peter: so basically the nobles created the lower house to kick the commoners out of parliament, keep them sidelined and less powerful?

[Peter F]

3 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Peter: so basically the nobles created the lower house to kick the commoners out of parliament, keep them sidelined and less powerful?

No, the Lords, for the most part, didn't want commoners having any recognized power at all. There was more than politics involved. There was a reason that the house of commons didn't exist prior to 1270something: The common folk did not have the blessings of God that the nobility obviously had. Nobles had power because, obviously, God wanted them to have power. Commoners didn't have power because thats the way God arranged things.  de Montfort's summoning of commoners to parliament was an affront to the way things were arranged by God. So they refused to sit with commoners and debate stuff. The Lords of the Land truly felt that to do so would be against the natural order of things.  No doubt, they also believed that with righteousness on their cause (refusal to meet with commoners) would also have the useful result of de Montfort having to compromise   with the Nobles.    But de Montfort bamboozled them by having the commons meet separately , thus taking the wind out of the Noblilities sails.  It must have been a pain for de Montfort now having to deal with two houses instead of one, but thats the price of maintaining ones head I suppose. 

This attitude of the powerful being powerful because it pleased God to have them, not others, be powerful and so granting them power was/is common throughout the world. This attitude is still regularly heard in our enlightened times. People are not equal; some have more merit than others, therefore the meritorious should rule. Same shit different diety.

   On the other hand, food was plentiful; populations growing; labour costs falling; towns growing in size and, most important,  money accumulating in some commoners purses.

The rise of the merchant class , with money available for loans to nobles to fund thier wars  meant that the day would come when the commons would have to have their demands listened too also. de Montfort, with the nobility drifting away from him, needed cash. and the merchants and towns had cash.

Also lets not forget that when we speak of the commons we do not mean the common folk. Serfs and peasants weren't included in the commons, nor would they be for a few hundred years yet.   Exceptions for a few city-states. Almost all of them also had separate houses with Nobility in one and the wealthy non-nobles in the other.

  

Edited February 4, 2017 by Peter F

[?Impact]

On 2/3/2017 at 2:44 PM, Boges said:

And in the US where they actually do elect their Senators, you have the problem of 2 Senators from a State with 500,000 people has the same power of a Senator represents several million people. How's that equitable?

...

And going back to Canada's Senate. Because Canada only has 10 provinces, the regional aspect of the Senate is a joke. Quebec and Ontario dominate the Sentate and Western Canada is left in the lurch because the distribution doesn't reflect the current make up of the country.

I'm not sure what you want. Quebec is represented in the Senate in proportion to it's population, and Ontario is underrepresented. They do not dominate the Senate.

The biggest problem with the Senate however is the appointment comes from the Prime Minister, so it has just been a puppet of the Prime Minsters. Justin Trudeau did try to address that, but he didn't really go far enough. I have always maintained that the Senate appointment committee (he did that part right) should have representatives from both the federal and provincial level and in proportion to the popular vote (ie. not just a puppet of PM and Premiers).

Edited February 6, 2017 by ?Impact

[Boges]

I want the Senate to be abolished. And failing that cut the number of Senators drastically and have equal numbers per province. 

[?Impact]

23 hours ago, Boges said:

I want the Senate to be abolished. And failing that cut the number of Senators drastically and have equal numbers per province. 

I guess I misinterpreted "How's that equitable?" to mean you thought it was not equitable. 

Do you not see any value in having some level of checks and balances in our legislative process? Especially in a country with the power resting almost 100% in the hands of a single individual (party leader dictating what party does, and with majority government that means absolute power).