Unicameral or bicameral?

[Caucas]

What do you consider advantages and disadvantages of a country's parliament having one or two chambers/houses?

Do you think one system is better than the other?

I think one chamber could be better, because legislation would be passed more easily, but if you think otherwise, I'm ready to be convinced.

(I asked myself this when working on my factbook.)

[Nicer potlimitomaha]

Bicamarel. It adds another level of protection against tyranny.

[Cruciland]

I second that feeling. If you have multiple houses they will be too busy waging war to take care of current events.

[Divair]

One chamber. Two chambers just slows down the government.

[Sinlenian Zindujan]

Unicameral. 451 seats.

[New Jutland]

It's the whole trade off between pragmatism and democracy, or effectiveness and scrutiny. On the one hand, unicameral legislatures do allow for quick passage of legislation, which can arguably be a good or a bad thing. In times of emergency, it lets you try and act swiftly and with minimum gridlock; avoiding something like Congress's fiscal cliff hoohah would be a good example for that.

On the other hand, unicameral legislatures can all to easily lead to elective dictatorships; what's to restrain someone with a large majority doing what they want? Something like the house of Lords holds government to account, and scrutinises and amends bills thoroughly and arguably for the better.

Overall, I'd feel more comfortable with bicameral, as it provides that extra check and balance. Unicameral does have the pragmatic argument, but I'd like to think that when speedy legislation is really needed, both chambers would realise this anyway and allow for quick (but not rushed) passage.

[Nadkor]

What do you consider advantages and disadvantages of a country's parliament having one or two chambers/houses?

Do you think one system is better than the other?

I think one chamber could be better, because legislation would be passed more easily, but if you think otherwise, I'm ready to be convinced.

(I asked myself this when working on my factbook.)

Really? Because it reads very much like your teacher just asked you this.

I'm a fan of bicameral legislatures with an upper reviewing chamber, rather than having two that are roughly equally powerful.

[Tulija]

If the second chamber is weaker, then this is a good 'sober thought' chamber that can table amendments, delay legislation and scrutinise government action. While committees also serve this purpose, a chamber dedicated to it is useful. As long as it isn't fully elected, in a worst case scenario there can be a balance between the possible popular choice (lower house) and the thoughtfully considered one upper house's amendment or block.

So uneven bicameral.

[The United Planet]

We have two chambers just to give smaller states more representation while still having proportional representation. All of our States have one chamber.

[Radiatia]

It depends what sort of a country you're living in.

Personally I prefer unicameralism, as such systems tend to be more efficient and in a unitary state there is little to no rational argument for the existence of an upper house.

However in a federation, such as Australia or the US - I myself do not live in a federation - then the argument for bicameralism, and an upper house to represent states or provinces as opposed to merely the population is a bit stronger.

EDIT: Actually are you talking OOC or IC? I can't tell.

[Aethelstania]

Two chambers. The lower house should be strong and the upper house should be weak - the UK (despite the fact our upper house isn't elected) is an ideal example of how to do things. You have the lower house that comes up with legislation and the upper house has a read and a think and sends it back a couple of times and 9/10 its better as a result - considering that about 95% of what most governments intend to do is wrong. Providing the upper house remains a consulting chamber rather than an opposition chamber its hugely beneficial in the fact that it improves legislation and prevents tyranny. It doesn't inevtibaly lead to gridlock providing you get the distribution of powers right

[New Jutland]

If the second chamber is weaker, then this is a good 'sober thought' chamber that can table amendments, delay legislation and scrutinise government action. While committees also serve this purpose, a chamber dedicated to it is useful. As long as it isn't fully elected, in a worst case scenario there can be a balance between the possible popular choice (lower house) and the thoughtfully considered one upper house's amendment or block.

So uneven bicameral.

This. Not Congress bicameral, but Parliament bicameral.

[Nadkor]

We have two chambers just to give smaller states more representation while still having proportional representation. All of our States have one chamber.

Who is "we" and "our"?

[Caucas]

What do you consider advantages and disadvantages of a country's parliament having one or two chambers/houses?

Do you think one system is better than the other?

I think one chamber could be better, because legislation would be passed more easily, but if you think otherwise, I'm ready to be convinced.

(I asked myself this when working on my factbook.)

Really? Because it reads very much like your teacher just asked you this.

I'm a fan of bicameral legislatures with an upper reviewing chamber, rather than having two that are roughly equally powerful.

If this was for any assignment of some sort, I would have mentioned it in my post.

[Caucas]

It depends what sort of a country you're living in.

Personally I prefer unicameralism, as such systems tend to be more efficient and in a unitary state there is little to no rational argument for the existence of an upper house.

However in a federation, such as Australia or the US - I myself do not live in a federation - then the argument for bicameralism, and an upper house to represent states or provinces as opposed to merely the population is a bit stronger.

EDIT: Actually are you talking OOC or IC? I can't tell.

OOC. As in: a real life human player wondering about his NSG factbook. I hope that made sense. I don't explain things very well, meh.

[Tmutarakhan]

I think one chamber could be better, because legislation would be passed more easily

I think one chamber is worse, for the exact same reason.

[Meridiani Planum]

I think one chamber could be better, because legislation would be passed more easily

I think that two chambers are better, precisely because one chamber passes legislation more easily.

[Conserative Morality]

Six chambers.

[Sibirsky]

Six chambers.

Nah. Twelve.

Or better yet, eleventy.

[Conserative Morality]

Nah. Twelve.

Or better yet, eleventy.

We did it once, gentlemen, and we can do it again.

[Nadkor]

Six chambers.

Sexicameral.

[Immoren]

3.5 chambers

But in all seriousness: I wonder in addition to size and homogeneity/heterogeneity of population, how much in uni vs bi matters whether nation has presidential or parliamentary or some other system.

[Cerod]

Bicamarel. It adds another level of protection against tyranny.

Not necessarily, what if the second house is bound to follow and do whatever the first house does?

[Nadkor]

Really? Because it reads very much like your teacher just asked you this.

I'm a fan of bicameral legislatures with an upper reviewing chamber, rather than having two that are roughly equally powerful.

If this was for any assignment of some sort, I would have mentioned it in my post.

Given that by doing so you would have been admitting to breaching one of the long-standing rules of this forum, what you probably would have done is precisely what you did.

[Daistallia 2104]

Sounded that way to me, as well, Nadkor....

Anywho, tricameral, with:
One large body with short terms (2-3 years), elected by a mixed system, with 1/3 cumulative voting proportional, 1/3 party list proportional, 1/3 single seat FPTP. Districts would not be tied to federal subunits, but populations, and you'd end
One mid-sized body with 5-10 year terms, elected by federal subunits by whatever system the state/provinvce/canton/whatever constitution calls for, with a fixed number of seats per state (2-5).
One small body with very long terms (20+ years), directly elected nationally FPTP to staggered terms (so that only a small number - 2-5 - appear on any given ballot)

For the US, to take one example, the sizes I'd consider ideal would be roughly 6000, 150, and 60.