The Instigator
Vesush
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Aleoz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Bicameral vs. Unicameral legislatures

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,641 times Debate No: 102766
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Vesush

Pro

Pro argues for Bicameral and Con argues for Unicameral legislatures.
Aleoz

Con

I accept Pro's set conditions.
Debate Round No. 1
Vesush

Pro

Before my first argument I will explain the difference between Bicameralism and Unicameralism. A bicameral legislature is one in which the legislators are divided into two separate assemblies, chambers or houses. Unicameral legislature is a legislature which consists of only one chamber or house.
My first argument is that time for reflection is important in the creation of laws. A lack of reflection often results in rashly-made, knee-jerk legislation. This is even worse when the executive is drawn from the majority group in the legislature, as in the UK or Israel, meaning that there is no check on rule-making. Having two houses also brings different perspectives to the process of scrutiny, as their members are often chosen in quite different ways, e.g. in the UK the House of Commons is elected, the House of Lords appointed or hereditary; in the USA and Germany, the lower house is elected by popular vote while the upper house represents the interests of different states. Second chambers have a very different job to the primary legislative body. Their responsibility is usually to analyze in depth and in detail the legislation that the primary body produces. For example, the British House of Lords forms committees that analyses legislation line by line. The first body just doesn"t have the time for this kind of activity. It makes for the passing of good law and the avoidance of bad. Rivalry is unusual in reality. In democratic houses, that"s because the houses are normally elected in different ways " it is made clear by longer terms and different geographical constituencies that make it clear that their mandate is different. In non-elected houses the very act of appointment demonstrates the presence of the chamber"s members for a particular task, different to the business of day-to-day government.
My second argument is that governments are too powerful in unicameral systems. It might be work well in legislatures such as Nebraska"s, which is supposedly non-partisan " but what of the other, more numerous legislatures such as Queensland"s, which are not? The lack of real opposition gives too much power to the government of the day.
Aleoz

Con

We live in a world that is becoming more diverse and where access to information is more feasible. We live in a world where people are much more able to form independent political views. We live in a world where people constantly re-consider which political party they side with. We live in a world where politicians, time after time, have consistently communicated with the respective population through emotion, rather than logic. We live in a world where people tend to be wrong. To claim that most people in each country knows whats best is a premise that would certainly delight news companies. The myriad of nuances in politics are too complex for the common man. In Washington DC, perspectives from multiple sections in America are always debated, yet never decided upon. A country should not be run like an art project. A country should be directed by people who are competent, and have a clear set of defined goals for the country. One set of people that are elected ,through whatever means, should be allowed a clear path towards accomplishing set goals when in position of power. In many bicameral countries, equal representation present more obstacles, and more obstacles towards equal rights of all. Unicameral Legislature presents to the country certain advantages more beneficial towards the progression of the country.
I believe that each country should preserve the core tenets that shapes its identity, while a unicameral house senators still represent significant portions of the population. Equal representation hinders progression, degrades equality, and provides an outlet for commoners to vote in their self interest. Self interest is why equal representation inadvertently leads to more reductions of freedom. In America, the will of the people allowed for Trump to initiate a short term Muslim ban. Trump and many other conservative politicians in European countries present not only the self interest of people, but self interest at the expense of their fellow man. America's founding fathers always were in staunch opposition against a pure democracy due to how self-serving people are. A unicameral system would reduce many of the barriers politicians face, and would make policymaking much for competently handled.
Debate Round No. 2
Vesush

Pro

Your main argument was that "a unicameral system would reduce many of the barriers politicians face". But why is this good for the country? Con never explained that properly and profoundly. I believe that it is more suitable for a country to take more time in scrutinizing legislation. This will make it better long-term. In the USA, for example the Senate cannot pass legislation without the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. So, if a bad act has been agreed in the House, the Senate will overrule it. Moreover, the bicameral structure frustrates simple majority rule. Double representation in a bicameral legislature fosters the balanced representation of rival interests, a more just and inclusive goal than mere majority rule.
When power is divided and diffused, as it is in a bicameral system, the professional representatives of powerful interests must win the support of a larger number of leaders, committee chairs, and members. The dispersion of authority through two houses makes it more difficult for the paid lobbyist to affect legislative activity by influencing just a few members. In a unicameral system, on the other hand, with just one house and fewer key legislators, managing outcomes is easier. Nebraska bears this out, being known among political scientists as (in the words of one) "almost heaven" for special interest lobbyists.
Aleoz

Con

My main argument was not to reduce the number of barriers politicians face. Although it was a reason mentioned in my case. My main argument was explaining how wrong people can be in a country. I used the example of Donald Trump's victory in America as a basis for this argument. I mentioned that ideally a country with a unicameral house should always strive to maintain core tenets upon which the country was founded.

Pro simply dropped all my arguments about how self-centered people usually are when voting. Pro just extended all previous arguments round 2, without addressing self interest and progression arguments in my case in round 2. Since there was no challenge against my arguments for round 2, I will respond to arguments put forth in round 3.

Pro's argues that more scrutiny in the political process helps a country long term. This is a premise that many people believe that has given rise to many authoritarian leaders. In the 1930s, many European countries had to combat the Great Depression. Many European countries were slow in response to the Great Depression due to frequent political squabbling. Slowness and the inability to adapt to change is what gave rise to dictators like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini. The people were tired of having political leaders continually argue without any action taken. To a degree, Donald Trump presented a suspension of arguing, and much more action in regard to political leadership. I, by no means, am asserting that Democracy and representation is bad. I am saying that to much of it will produce many problems for the survival of the democracy.

Pro failed to address the argument put forth in round two about how America ought to limit voting to just the senate and presidency. This is the best course, because presentation of the people is provided with political action.

Pro also puts forth the argument that special interests will become too powerful in a Unicameral based society. I counter this argument by saying that special interest groups are still very powerful in bicameral based countries. The average amount of money a senator raises is 10 million dollars. The average amount of money a representative raises is 2 million dollars. Pro's argument is easily resolved if campaign contributions and super-pacs were heavily regulated and limited.

Pro failed to explain why equal representation is good, and how an absence of "extremely" equal representation leads to a more powerful government.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.