Bicameralism



Bicameralism

Introduction

In 2008, large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate were swept into office by voters. The Democrats had an ambitious agenda. Members of Congress, along with President Obama, promised to overhaul the health care system, reform rules governing Wall Street and the banking system, and impose tough standards on emissions and pollutants to reduce greenhouse gases. Despite their numbers, and widespread ideological agreement, relations between the chambers were contentious, almost from the start of the 111th Congress. Both the 111th Congress, which had a large party majority in both chambers, and the 112th Congress, which has divided party control, demonstrates why understanding the bicameral bargaining process is important for scholars and policymakers. The resolution of legislation is not only a necessary Constitutional step in the lawmaking process, but it also has an important effect on the quantity, type, and substance of legislation. Political scientists generally agree that bicameralism is a conservative legislative institution; as compared to a unicameral system, it promotes the status quo and makes policy action slower and more difficult to accomplish. The logic behind this claim is simple. In bicameral systems, instead of one chamber agreeing to policy change, two must agree. While it is difficult to show empirically that bicameralism reduces legislative productivity, some indirect evidence has been found. In the American context, there is evidence that gridlock is more likely as the preferences of the two chambers diverge. Therefore, all the issues and aspects related to Bicameralism will be discussed in detail.

Bicameral Origins and Effects in the United States

The bicameral legislature in the United States is the result of a compromise between the Founding Fathers. Those from states with small populations favored equal representation in the legislative body, while those from states with large populations favored proportional representation. Much of the schism between large and small states was driven not just by representation concerns in the new government, but also by concerns about the relative power of the new federal government related to the states. The researchers in 1984 characterized the character of the discussion as one of interest-laced, once the debate turned to the lower level of constitutional choice. The debate was not only about power in the legislature, but about federalism as whole small states that were afraid in a typical manner. The federal government would not only become powerful, but would be dominated by the large states which would pose a threat to small state self-governance. The bicameral compromise, which was also linked to the debate over slavery for purposes of apportionment, was largely an attempt to satisfy the small states who steadfastly refused to agree to a proportional representation system (Arceneaux, 2005, 173).

Although the compromise which created a two-chambered Congress was one of political expediency, it also served the values of the Framers. They wanted to create a legislative system where policy was relatively stable by balancing democratic responsiveness with a system of government that would not be subject to the whims of a temporary ...