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
It’s a civic travesty that almost half the states (including many blue states) do not empower their citizens to submit ballot initiatives. They come in handy when legislators (due to gerrymandering, corruption, cowardice, etc.) are not aligned with popular policies.
And for those that have horror stories from ballot initiatives gone wrong, two thoughts: (1) There are many more horror stories from the lack of ballot initiatives (ie representation gone wrong); and (2) You can be smart in ballot initiative rules design.
For example, three design elements to avoid the California problems: First, ballot initiatives should be able to be overturned by legislatures after a certain amount of time; they should simply be reset the default option, forcing legislators to affirmatively repeal them.
When something really bad happens in public life, we eventually have to ask ourselves: “Are we willing to commit to attending routine meetings to change this?” If we’re not, we’re not going to change it. It’s not fair—it’s just the reality of how change happens.
There’s an urge to say, “Why should I have to commit to attending routine meetings — isn’t that the leaders’ job?” We can feel that, but in the end, our feeling about the unfairness of that doesn’t change the reality that they’re not going to do it for us.
This is something that good labor organizers understand. You can get angrier and angrier that the boss isn’t serving your interests, but in the end, you have to face the reality that the boss is not going to serve your interests unless you force them to.
We remember Martin Luther King for his cinematic dragon-slaying—his iconic speeches and confrontations—but what’s lost is all the long-haul work that queued up those moments. A thread: <1/18>
King makes clear in Stride Toward Freedom, his memoir of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, just how much time he spent in the mundane work of winning the community’s trust, joining organizations, weaving together coalitions through multiple meetings, and planning gatherings. <2/18>
The whole beginning of his memoir is about the not-so-thrilling work of forming church committees: a religious education committee, a social service committee, a scholarship fundraising committee, and a cultural committee. <3/18>
I can't recommend enough centering your politics around the advancement of policies, rather than solely politicians. What's interesting about policy-centered politics is that it's both substantially radicalizing and interpersonally moderating at the same time. Here's why:
It's substantially radicalizing because the more you look under the hood of how systems work—and how many wonderful alternatives are being underutilized—the more you are outraged. I'm constantly thinking "Wow, it's even worse than it looks" and "The alternatives are everywhere!"
But it's interpersonally moderating, because there are strange bedfellows and surprising collaborators on so many different policy campaigns. Often the best ally on advancing a policy is the one most different than you on everything else. So you can't alienate too many people.
For those debating the religious left right now, I highly recommend David Campbell and Robert Putnam’s book, “American Grace,” which is filled with very informative, nearly-comprehensive history, charts, and analysis of all aspects of American religion today.
Some surprising charts in there. For example: Progressives get more political in sermons, whereas the religious right moves their ideas through talk in the pews:
Here's one on how much your faith affects politics — and how conservative that politics is:
It’s helpful to learn about the moral ethic of socialism — but I think it’s also helpful to learn about the various institutional elements that make up socialism, too. These elements are never really unpacked in the campaign debates, leading to confusion. Here’s seven major ones:
1) UNIONS: workers, tenants, small producers, & consumers organizing to collectively bargain with employers, landlords, platforms, and corporations
2) COOPERATIVES: workers, tenants, small producers & consumers having legal mechanisms to collectively own businesses, housing, land, platforms, etc. [+ mixed versions of worker ownership, such as ESOPS and codetermination.]