On the Merits of Bicameral Legislatures: Policy Stability within Partisan Polities 12-12-02 Roger D. Congleton Center for Study of Public Choice Fairfax VA 22030
[email protected] Abstract Some “democrats” have argued that bicameral systems are undemocratic, insofar as voters in different regions or member states have disproportionate representation in one of the chambers. Others have argued that the bicameral structure is redundant insofar as elections ultimately determine the members of each chamber. This paper argues that bicameralism serves a useful constitutional purpose that is neither undemocratic nor redundant. Unbiased forms of bicameralism tend to make public policy more predictable and more, rather than less, faithful to voter preferences. Statistical evidence from the Danish parliamentary reform of 1953 and the Swedish parliamentary reform of 1970 demonstrates that bicameral legislatures tend to have more predictable public policy that better reflect long- term voter demands than unicameral legislatures in partisan polities. Key Words: Bicameral, Unicameral, Stability, Public Choice, Constitutional Analysis, Public Choice JEL Categories: D6, D7 I. Introduction: Bicameralism and Democracy This paper analyzes some neglected properties of bicameral systems of governance in which bicameralism is not used to “overweight” one group’s interests relative to others nor to bias policy making toward continuation of the status quo. The results suggest that bicameralism may improve public policy by making it more predictable and more consensual—especially in settings where policy deliberations are partisan. They demonstrate that completely representative bicameral legislatures tend to have policies that are more stable through time and more broadly supported on average than those adopted by otherwise similar unicameral legislatures, especially in settings where political parties are important.