[amyjc]

What are the advantages of a unicameral legislature and a bicameral legislature?

With Congress being blamed so much, what do you think our current members should have to be qualified? Is it fair for our President to have a veto power over them?

[tomder55]

What are the advantages of a unicameral legislature and a bicameral legislature?

the bicameral legislature is not really an advantage . It is more the product of the Connecticut compromise .

Essentially there wouldn't have been a union without an understanding between big and small states . The small states correctly surmised that if law was the sole authority of proportional representation that they would be overwhelmed in the legislature by the larger states .

The compromise made the House of Representatives the "people's house "a strict proportional representation where the largest states would have the most representatives... and the Senate the "state's house"... with each state getting equal representation.

Originally conceived , the Senators were appointed by the state legislatures ;the Representatives in the House by popular vote in the state. You still see this even though the Senate changed by the 17th amendment to selection by popular vote also . When there is a vacancy between terms it is the state governors who appoint Senators . If there is a vacancy in the House ;a special election.

One of the advantages of the bicameral system in my view is that the system slows down the legislative process. The Senate being the so called "deliberative body " usually keeps the laws from becoming too extreme . Also since they serve 6 years instead of the 2 ,they are less exposed to the pressures from local constituencies and interests .The net affect is that by slowing down the process ;there would be the added protection against hasty and ill considered action.
Well that's the theory behind it anyway.

I think a bicameral legislature is the best option in a Federal system ;where there is shared power between state and national government . In other nations like England ;the other body is of lesser value.

With Congress being blamed so much, what do you think our current members should have to be qualified?

The constitutional requirements works for me . I wish there were fewer lawyers in the group because often there is a conflict of interest but I would not change the requirements.

Is it fair for our President to have a veto power over them?

Absolutely! There is an addition check and balance the Legislature has called the over ride if they really think the bill is essential . But what this does is forces the President and Congress together to work a bill until it is satisfactory to both .

[paraclete]

The advantage of a unicamerial legislature is once a decision is made it can be implemented without further debate. A bicameral legislature places legislative decisions under scrutiny and can be used to block measures which are unpopular with a particular political group. This process can sometimes result in fairer or more inclusive leglislation but can also provide the opportunity for obstruction and nullifying the elected government's legislative program. When a government holds the ascendency in both chambers the process looses much of its supposed benefit.

[tomder55]

When a government holds the ascendency in both chambers the process looses much of its supposed benefit.

Yes ,that is why it is popular here to say 'elections have consequences'.
But in the United States system the minority does have certain powers in the Senate. Senate rules allows for the filibuster during the debate of a bill that can only be broken with a super majority . Also the Senate alone is constitutionally mandated to ratifies treaties which requires a 2/3 majority . The Senate also through it's advise and consent mandate confirms Presidential Cabinet level appointments ,and selections to the Supreme Court. The fillibuster rules also apply during those debates .
So ;at least the way the US system is structured ;the minority cannot be ignored.

[paraclete]

Yes ,that is why it is popular here to say 'elections have consequences'.
But in the United States system the minority does have certain powers in the Senate. Senate rules allows for the filibuster during the debate of a bill that can only be broken with a super majority . Also the Senate alone is constitutionally mandated to ratifies treaties which requires a 2/3 majority . The Senate also through it's advise and consent mandate confirms Presidential Cabinet level appointments ,and selections to the Supreme Court. The fillibuster rules also apply during those debates .
So ;at least the way the US system is structured ;the minority cannot be ignored.

Well that may be so but you asked about the advantages and there are many other bicameral systems in the world, some of which work much better that that in the US and some of which don't work at all. I find the fillibuster the grestest travesty of democracy ever foisted on a gulliable public, that a representative of the people could prevent passage of legislation by talking about anything but the point, ridiculous

[tomder55]

I strongly disagree. The last thing we need is radicals winning in a single election cycle fundamentally changing the nation because there is no check and balance on their ability to make law .
I give you the current administration as an example.Unchecked we might never recover from their folly.

[excon]

I give you the current adminstration as an example.Unchecked we might never recover from their folly.

Hello:

I agree with tom, only I'd insert BUSH in place of OBAMA.

excon

[tomder55]

Doesn't really matter ;the principle is the same.

‘Of what use is the Senate?’ he asked, as he stood before the fire with a cup of tea in his hand, pouring the tea into his saucer as he spoke. ‘You have answered your own question,’ replied Washington. ‘What do you mean?’ ‘Why did you pour that tea into your saucer? ’ ‘To cool it,’ quoth Jefferson. ‘Even so,’ said Washington, ‘the Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool.’

(Memoirs of the Right Honourable Sir John Alexander Macdonald, G. C.. Volume 2 By Sir Joseph Pope
)

[paraclete]

I strongly disagree. The last thing we need is radicals winning in a single election cycle fundamentally changing the nation because there is no check and balance on their ability to make law .
I give you the current adminstration as an example.Unchecked we might never recover from their folly.

I thought you lived in a democracy where the majority get to say what goes. What you are saying is it doesn't matter what the people say in the ballot box, if you don't like it, it isn't on. That is not democracy. Look, I live in a democracy too and I don't like the way the government is behaving at the moment. Our bicameral system (modelled on yours) is preventing them from passing their legislative program because people elected six years ago in a different political era are still in office. Much as I applaud the political gains, I know the system is broken because the minority has the ascendency. The present government doesn't have the guts to use the remedy available to them and polls suggest if they did you might not find any of them there to vote.

I'm sure you know that it is possible to repeal legislation, all you need is enough votes. Right now I am watching enough mistakes for a political party to be out of office for a generation, not healthy but they did it to themselves through arrogance which incidentally is how the other lot lost the last election.

[tomder55]

No that isn't what I'm saying . In Australia your elected leaders can be recalled with a simple motion of no confidence . Here we have fixed terms .

And in truth we don't have a "democracy " as you define itwhere the majority get to say what goes... nor would I want to live in one . We have a federal republic with " majority rules "tempered by minority rights and limited powers (as I quote in signature by Madison... one of the founding fathers ,and one of the greatest defenders of the Constitutions )."If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one." --James Madison

[paraclete]

no that isn't what I'm saying . In Australia your elected leaders can be recalled with a simple motion of no confidence . Here we have fixed terms .

I think you have a mistaken impression, a no confidence motion is about as hard to get up as impreaching your President, or changing the constitution, true we can swap the leader but the party stays in power which may mean no improvement since the faces stay the same, so the reality is we have fixed terms too although it is possible for the term to be shortened as is the current circumstance but it is the government that has the option. It is very unusual for a party in government to change their leader, but when in opposition they might change frequently

What we do do which is an improvement on your system is that the term of the political leader is in unison with the term of the parliament which means he must face the electorate at the same time. This means we don't get that lame duck situation but the misalignment of Senate terms means we may get a government that is a lame duck

[tomder55]

Lame duck... now there is something I'd like to eliminate.. . not for the Presidency ;I think the transition is needed ;but the lame duck Congressional session .

We will have one in December this year ;and our Congress is delaying some important legislation until then . It is then when they will make budgetary decisions though another 'reconciliation ' bill that will most likely reinstitute the punitive AMT (alternate minimum tax). This is when their promise to not raise taxes on people earning less that $250,000 will become a lie.

[paraclete]

lame duck ... now there is something I'd like to eliminate . ...not for the Presidency ;I think the transition is needed ;but the lame duck Congressional session .

We will have one in December this year ;and our Congress is delaying some important legislation until then . It is then when they will make budgetary decisions though another 'reconciliation ' bill that will most likely reinstitute the punitive AMT (alternate minimum tax). This is when their promise to not raise taxes on people earning less that $250,000 will become a lie.

Ah the way you handle budget and taxation is another difference between our democracies. We have a strange sham bipartisan thing that supply will not be withheld, so no tampering with the budget bills but heinous changes to tax will bring problems. You may have noted that Krudd has had his "great big tax on everything" defeated and deferred and now he has inserted in the budget the "great big tax on mining" and this will become an election issue.
So it has become fashionable to stop new taxes, the "alcopop" tax was held up for several months as has the change in the arrangements regarding the health funds rebate, All of this is possible because of the structure of a bicameral system which places power in the hands of different parties even though there was a clear electoral majority. The last time there was a clear majority in both houses we had radical reform of labour laws and a swift change in government. What we learned is giving politicians absolute power is not a good thing but neither is an ungovernable country.

The "banana" republic is about to descend upon us again, and it is the fault of those nongs who borrowed a parliamentary system from the US designed to prevent anything from being done

[tomder55]

I think the biggest difference between yours and the US system is that you would never select a backbencher as leader (KRudd isn't a back bencher... just a fool )

[paraclete]

I think the biggest difference between yours and the US system is that you would never select a backbencher as leader (KRudd isn't a back bencher ...just a fool )

Really, where do you think Krudd came from and what about Hawke, who was parachuted into parliament to become leader, and, of course, there was Latham but then people don't remember failures. I think you might be focusing too much on the Liberal side of the equation. Not everyone who gets up has years of experience warming a bench or handling a shadow portfolio. It is true that a leader won't be a newly elected representative because that person is an unknown.

I think what you are saying is that we don't have the same "respect" for raw talent you do, It's true that the party machine is well entrenched in our system and it isn't possible for the leader to emerge from the Senate. It is a long time since we had a senator become party leader. This is because the Prime Minister must face the house on a daily basis and be someone who has had their own singular electoral success and who can loose an election in the same spectacular manner that Howard lost the last one.

I do agree that Krudd lacks certain leadership qualities such as the ability to share the publicity and the load. His style is presidential which will be his undoing. You can only take the responsibility for failure so many times

[tomder55]

It is true that a leader won't be a newly elected representative because that person is an unknown.

Bingo... wasn't Krudd first elected in the late 1990s ? Our President went from being a freshman Senator to Presidential candidate in about a year.

I think what you are saying is that we don't have the same "respect" for raw talent you do,

Raw talent ? More like a bumbling nephyte .

[paraclete]

Bingo... wasn't Krudd first elected in the late 1990s ? Our President went from being a freshman Senator to Presidential candidate in about a year. .

How long do you stay a freshman in your system? Obama was an experienced politician even if he was a late comer to Washington in 2005. As I said before we have had such people; like Hawke who became PM within a few months on entering Parliament, but Hawke had some good people and let them have their head, and then there was that spectacular failure Latham. Like Obama he looked great until he actually became leader. Then he self destructed.

.

Raw talent ? More like a bumbling nephyte .

Do you mean neophyte. I assume you are talking about BO. Krudd has long experience in politics. You know, Tom, as well as I do, that you have to have a big ego to be a politician leader and a can do attitude doesn't mean you can, it takes the ability to know you don't know everything and you need to employ people who know more than you. A great political leader knows how to take advice and let others do the work, this is where Krudd fails and I suspect that BO might do the same. It is actually the failure of the system which places a man on a pinnacle rather than on a broad plateau

[tomder55]

How long do you stay a freshman in your system?

One 6 year term in the Senate. Zero served less than a half term;and most of that time was spent campaigning for President.There is no single legislative achievement that he can point to.
Before that his elective experience was back bencher status in state politics.

[paraclete]

One 6 year term in the Senate. Zero served less than a half term;and most of that time was spent campaigning for President.There is no single legislative achievement that he can point to.
Before that his elective experience was back bencher status in state politics.

This is a difference we apparently have, individuals, unless they are leaders can rarely point to legislative achievements because it is the party and the leader who guides the program and sponsors the legislation, so we wouldn't expect an individual unless they had been a minister to be able to point to specific achievements, but our backbenchers gain their elevation by being appointed to portfolios where I expect yours gain their experience from committee work. You apparently have a path from State politics into Federal politics whereas we rarely see that sort of cross over. It is usually death to a federal aspiration to be involved in the bullpit of state politics. Even a former State Premier would rarely risk their reputation to contest a federal seat, they would have to be parachuted in destined for leadership takeover. An Obama would be rare in our system and the only comparison I can think of is Hawke and he had many years of leading the labour movement at national level before moving into federal politics, some of his proteges like Crean, Combey and Gillham haven't necessarly stared when making the transition

Our bicameral systems with common roots have extremely different power structures but I believe ours offers the opportunity for more rapid decision implementation