As a long-time former legislative staffer, I witnessed bad legislation being passed by one chamber all the time because it was a ploy to score political points. Luckily, when the legislation made it to the other chamber– even one controlled by the same party– the other chamber would recognize the bad public policy for what it was and put the breaks on it.

We need insulation from the whims of any particular legislative chamber. We shouldn’t hand them an even more powerful megaphone and stage to display their sanctimonious, chest-thumping political maneuvers.

If we truly want to make substantive changes to the process, cut the number of members by a third in each chamber and then extend term limits for a total of twelve years.

We’ve got so few players in the legislature who truly know how to get anything done. Have you noticed how many legislators spend six years in the House and then leave with zero substantive accomplishments while they eye a run at the state Senate?

Let’s pare the numbers of legislators back and focus on upgrading the quality of the ones we already have.

Of course, there’s a case to be made that there is no reason for the development of bi-cameral legislatures. The federal model was extended to most of the states (save one) for the simple reason that it evolved more support for statehood creation and that “it’s the way the founding fathers thought it should be”.

The federal system is after all, an anachronism created to protect landowners from populist movements that often were interested in what the landowners held and how they, the populists, could get their hands on it.
Craig is probably right that there is no real definable reason for having two chambers, at least, it is not easily defendable.

Perhaps measuring it against parliamentary government, albeit a system from which the ultimate leadership is selected and usually a minor and much less significant second chamber is often present , is instructive. Most parliaments swing wildly in intervals and take their countries in and out of forms of government. Ours tends to swing less dramatically and requires more time for the pressures for change to be evident. Perhaps that is the legacy of the bi-cameral form. I suspect that is the happenstance with state bi-cameral legislatures as well.

There are, of course, variations on the uni-cameral theme, Wisconsin’s Joint Appropriations decision committee structure comes to mind, but basically the question is, is a change going to result in benefit? I doubt that it will. As long as legislators look at the position as a full time occupation and one in which the slary is most important, they’ll view it as a personal need rather than a political philosophic debating society. They will be focused on stretching the activities of the job so that it will appear as if they are justified in accepting the salary.

We would probably be better served if we just told elected officials and candidates that this job pays $X (and make it decent), half to be paid over the next four months and half upon completion of session, and the session runs from Jan. 20-May 15 (there is no magic to this date, but the Ides of March have some precedent after all). If the budget isn’t in place and finished by May 15th, the legislature does not receive its final half payment. That should solve Craig’s original concern that something needs to be done to accomplish the goal of putting a functioning government in place.

I can see no merit in a unicameral legislature. Like term limits, it gives the illusion of “doing something” while doing nothing – or worse. A part-time legislature on the other hand, if properly constructed would be a substantive improvement over the status quo in Michigan.

Of the six states I managed, four were part time. Get rid of term limits and move to a part time legislature. By the way, under a part-time legislature the budget would most likely have been done back in April.

The other House was to have longer terms. This was to give those officeholders more independence from “The Mob” and allow them to be wise and independent. They were to take the long view and have the independence to do what is wise not just what is popular.

I think this is a good blend and worth keeping. If a bill can get through “The Mob” and “The Wise Men” it’s likely a decent bill. If we were to have only 1 House, which would you give up?

I believe it would be far more constructive to eliminate term limits.

Secondarily I would recommend Michigan stagger its existing Senate Sweat elections so that half are up for election every 2 years. This would tamp down the tendency of the Senate to act more favorably to “The Mob” as they collectively head towards the next election.

I remember Joe Forbes, House Majority Leader in the 70s and 80s saying that “The State Senate is the best argument for a unicameral legislature.”