If you are in a state that has citizen-initiated ballot initiatives, this (unicameralism) would be a great thing to put on the ballot! A question for the skeptics: Has Nebraska been harmed by unicameralism since their citizens decided to #GoUnicameral in 1934?
Nebraska Progressive George Norris began the fight in 1923, arguing in the NYT that the Founders' experiment with bicameralism "has been very unsatisfactory"—that all the back-and-forth between the houses creates enough confusion for politicians to cover their tracks.
Norris continued the fight for a decade — and eventually won in 1934. The Nebraska Senator's "hobby" turned into a circulating petition, which eventually turned into a state constitutional amendment.
In 1937, the first unicameral legislature gaveled in. Norris was there to watch with pride at his successful reform. Since then, Nebraska may have problems just like any other state — but it's not because of the unicameral legislature!
Other states — from Georgia in the 30s to Missouri in the 40s to New Jersey and Rhode Island in the 60s — have tried to #GoUnicameral too.
The last major effort was by Jesse Ventura in 1999 in Minnesota.
In my view, the only benefit to two houses is you have more civic leaders (which means more: ways to have your voice heard, eyes watchdogging state government, paths to power for people, etc.) but that can be solved by just increasing the number of delegates in the one house.
The biggest argument to #GoUnicameral is that it clarifies governmental engagement & accountability. If something didn't pass, you know it's because it didn't pass the one house. As a citizen, there is less need to memorize labyrinthian conference committee rules to trace power.
Colbert channeling George Norris, arguing for us to #GoUnicameral
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.