eral system permit easy news coverage
and searching publicity. Increased pub-
lic understanding is an inevitable result.
The development of legislative leader-
ship is facilitated where legislators are
concentrated in one chamber, and this
concentration of leadership simplifies
the working relationships between the
governor and the legislature.
REBUTTAL OF OBJECTIONS
TO VNICAMERALISM
Unicameralists reject the criticism
levied by the bicameralists. The one
major objection to unicameralism is the
fact that a review by the second chamber
is eliminated. As noted before, unicam-
eralists counter with an attack on the
general worth of the review given by
bicameral systems; point out the lessened
need for a second legislative review with
the growth of legislative councils, pro-
fessional bill-drafting services, and ex-
ecutive leadership; and claim that the
experience of Nebraska has proved in
fact that there is no need for review.
Should it still be felt, however, that a
second legislative review is needed, uni-
cameralists point out that it can be pro-
vided for under their system.
One proposed review method requires
that certain categories of legislation be
passed in two different sessions before
becoming effective. This requirement of
a second passage could be imposed even
where there may be an intervening elec-
tion. Because of the delays involved,
this approach is feasible only with re-
spect to fundamental issues where the
need for a wide and lasting consensus
is vitally important.
Another proposed approach, feasible
for ordinary measures, is for the legis-
lature to choose, when it first convenes,
a portion of its membership to sit in a
separate revising chamber as is now
|
done in unicameralist Scandinavian
countries.40 All major questions and
all conflicts between the two houses are
handled by a majority vote of the two
houses in a common session. In short,
the second chamber can suggest revi-
sions, but has no power to enforce them
over the wishes of the elected legislature.
This, it will be recognized, is in effect
the British system where the House of
Lords can suggest revisions, but no
longer has the power to prevent the
passage of legislation.
This method of providing for a re-
view of the work of the elected legis-
lature bears a noticeable resemblance
to the "Virginia Plan" advanced in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787.
That plan, favored by James Madison
among others, provided for a lower
house elected by the people, with
an upper house chosen by the lower
house.41 Since the upper house would
be chosen by the lower house, even
though the choice was from nomina-
tions submitted by the various state
legislatures, the upper house under the
"Virginia Plan" could not be expected
to prevail in a conflict between the two.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing summary of arguments
advanced for and against bicameralism
and unicameralism tips heavily in favor
of unicameralism. This reflects the fact
that people who write on the subject —
political scientists and other persons
primarily with academic backgrounds —
heavily favor unicameralism. The most
40 McDaniel, No One Misses the Landsting,
But — , 49 am. scandinavian rev. 268
(1961).
41 H. thornton, legislative organiza-
tion and procedures (bicameralism v. uni-
cameralism) 4 (Okla. State Legislative Coun-
cil, Constitutional Survey Committee Study
No. 8, 1948).
115
|
