Bloodless Coup

shouldn't you include more detail as to why unicameral legislatures would be preferable? part of the democratic core of our system is the sense that the excesses of fleeting majorities are dangerous things, hence representative democracy, and at that, legislative representation in two houses configured differently in ways that tend to militate against precipitous action, which rarely is required (and where it is, more often than not is provided for in executive authority).

part of what's come from my reading of Amar's America's Constitution is the tremendous degree of innovation in the United States bicameral legislative scheme, which might have been given a surface patina that recalled the English Parliament, but which diverged wildly in virtually every particular beneath that deceptive surface.

and it was in the immediate wake of the ratification of the Constitution that states began to adopt government structures that more closely resembled the federal structure, ostensibly because they were convinced of its probity, and its superiority to the more loosely configured state governments that preceded the Framing, with weak executive counsels, unworkably short terms, and, not infrequently, unicameral legislatures of suspect efficacy and probity.

Well Levinson's response would probably be something along the lines of "if we want people to have faith in democracy, government needs to be responsive and lines of responsibility need to be clearly seen". Something like that.

Governments obviously work much differently now than they did 200+ years ago, and I'm not saying every state should do this - but for some it would seem an innovation worth trying out. 2 houses basically means that 1) passing anything becomes more difficult, so the government is less responsive to the people's will and 2) it's harder to know what's really going on inside the legislature. Now it could be that some states would benefit more from this change than others. Perhaps in, say, non-professionalized legislatures that meet rarely, in those cases when the legislature is already quite weak, it might be worthwhile to consider ditching one of the houses.

I'm not saying this is system would be best for all states. But it might help improve the quality of government (and the faith in government) in some. And I don't think there's necessarily a great value in following the lessons of the national government extremely closely, as running the United States is quite different from running Wyoming or Arkansas.

not to quibble with your caveats and general observations, but your two enumerated points --

1) passing anything becomes more difficult, so the government is less responsive to the people's will and 2) it's harder to know what's really going on inside the legislature

-- trouble me a bit. as to (1), we're back to ephemeral and potentially dangerous majorities, which are all the more likely in small, more homogeneous states, whichever electoral configuration they select. if that's levinson's idea of responsiveness, count me out. regarding (1), i don't think i understand. transparency for its own sake is a function ancillary to the legislative process, and should work fine without regard to legislative system. on the other hand, if the point is that it's more difficult for people to understand what's going on in a bicameral legislature, well, if the federal model, explained at length in public school civics, and the media are insufficient to provide people with the information requisite to understand the basic idea behind a bicameral legislature, i really don't think reducing legislatures to one house is going to help very much.

btw, a lot of why i disagree that even small states really require simplified systems is based on the power given most state executives to act unilaterally in the face of exigent circumstances -- another characteristic that only came into widespread play at the state level after the Framing, when the model of a strong executive was out there, and the arguments in support of it had been made in the Federalist and elsewhere.

Uh oh - you are starting to remind me of Morris, with your opposition to rule by the people. :)

And I think you are greatly overselling the ability to have a transparent government. Given how bad local political reporting is in 90% of the country (or something like that), it is very hard for even interested individuals to know what's going on in a legislature, who's responsible for what, etc. To the extent that knocking one branch out of the system makes that clearer (and also thereby eases the ability to have a responsive government) I think that's valuable.

And if your last point is that governors can just do whatever the hell they please - well that could create an argument in favor of unicameral systems, as that could ease maintaining opposition to a governor's programs.