Proponents of unicameral systems claim that lawmaking is more efficient when laws are debated and voted on in one chamber.
They say that laws that are more responsive to changes in public opinion is a good thing for a democracy.
A unicameral system can help encourage citizens to feel a sense of identity with their government, since it implies that the whole country shares the same fundamental interests and can thus be represented by a single body.
Governments in Europe used to have different legislative chambers to represent different social classes.
The lower house of the British parliament is called the House of Commons, while the upper house is called the House of Lords.
The French used to have five houses in their legislature.
As countries become more democratic, their governments become more representative of the people as a whole and not of social classes.
Sweden adopted a unicameral legislature in 1971 after moving to two legislative houses.
France now has two.
The House of Commons has more power than the House of Lords, but it can only delay, not block, laws made by the House of Commons.
The founders did not approve of unicameralism.
The framers preferred bicameralism because it made it difficult for the legislature to represent more than one set of interests.
The different levels of the federal government could be represented by bicameral legislatures.
Federal governments that preserve a bicameral structure typically do so with the intention of having the people represented in one house and the states in another.
Bicameralism was better than unicameralism for the young republic because it fit their narrative that the smaller units of government power, the safer the government would be from those who would abuse its power.
There are drawbacks to the quick legislative responsiveness of a unicameral legislature.
Changes in public opinion are fleeting, and a society in a calmer moment would not want the laws to be changed so quickly.
Nebraska, alone of all the states, adopted a one-house system in the 1930s despite being convinced that a bicameral system was the way to go.
Onehouse offered more transparency, simplicity, and economy according to advocates.
Two bodies have to agree on a law in the exact same form for it to pass.
It's likely that opposing sides will compromise at times.
The unicameral legislature would have been simpler if the founders hadn't wanted to compromise.
The Senate was set up to be more stable.
The approval of members of the president's cabinet is one of the extra responsibilities given to the Senate.
The adults in the room are expected to act like senators.
The members of Congress wanted the results of fair elections to be recognized by all of them.
One side doesn't take its marbles when it loses.
It doesn't say that the other side cheated or that the win is illegitimate.
It accepts the loss because it knows it will have another chance.
The government that sees the laws being carried out.
Although technically executives serve in an administrative role, many end up with some decision-making or legislative power as well.
National executives in their countries make laws and policies with varying amounts of power.
The president of the United States, who is not a part of the legislature, can propose, encourage, and veto legislation to European prime ministers who are part of the legislature.
The Articles of Confederation provided for no executive power at all, which was a testimony to the founders' conviction.
The chaos that resulted under the Articles made it clear that a stronger government was needed.
According to the constitutional debates, many of the founding fathers were haunted by the idea that they might inadvertently reestablish the power that they had lost with the Revolution.
Whether the executive should be more than one person, whether he should be able to seek reelection as many times as he wanted, and whether he should be elected directly by the people or indirectly by the legislature were the central controversies.
Some believed that the power could be limited by dividing it among several officeholders, but they lost out to those who thought there should be a single president.
The question of whether the executive should be allowed to run for reelection for an unlimited number of terms was complicated by the question of how the president was to be elected.
He should be limited to one term if he was chosen by Congress rather than the people.
Since he would be dependent on Congress for his power, he might fail to provide an adequate check on that body in order to be chosen for additional terms.
Even though the popular election of the president would allow him to be elected for multiple terms, it was considered highly suspect by the founding fathers because they had no trust in the people.
Alexander Hamilton wanted to eliminate the problem of being dependent on Congress or the popular will by having the president serve for life.
One of the highlights of the American founding was that the diverse ideas were resolved and consensus achieved.
The final provision of presidential authority was not as powerful as Hamilton's lifetime executive.
It was a stronger office than the Anti-Federalists wanted.