Unicameral Systems: Structure, Operation, and Global Examples

The concept of a unicameral system denotes a streamlined form of governance, marked by a singular legislative house. Notable countries, such as Armenia, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Monaco, Ukraine, Serbia, Turkey, and Sweden, employ this structure. The 20th century witnessed an uptick in its adoption, with nations like Greece, New Zealand, and Peru transitioning from bicameral setups to unicameral systems.

Examining the operational dynamics of a unicameral system, Sweden serves as an illustrative case. Operating under a parliamentary model, Sweden’s government comprises 349 seats in its Parliament. Political parties securing a minimum of 4% of the national vote gain proportional representation. In 2020, Social Democrats led with 28.7% (100 seats), followed closely by the Moderates at 20.1% (70 seats). Parliament decides on legislative bills proposed by Members of Parliament (MPs) or the government, with most requiring a simple majority, except for budgetary matters and constitutional changes.

The major advantage of a unicameral system lies in its efficiency in passing laws. However, concerns arise regarding potential ease of passage for laws favored by the ruling class, susceptibility to special interest influence, and the likelihood of groupthink. Unicameral systems, requiring fewer legislators, may operate more cost-effectively, introduce fewer bills, and have shorter legislative sessions.

The historical context of unicameral systems traces back to the Articles of Confederation in 1781, where a unicameral setup was proposed for the U.S. government. However, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 opted for a bicameral system, creating the Senate and the House. While the U.S. federal government and most states utilize a bicameral system, U.S. cities, counties, and school districts often adopt a unicameral system.

Nebraska stands as a unique case, transitioning to a unicameral system in 1937 under George Norris’s advocacy. Norris argued that the bicameral system was outdated and inefficient. Nebraska’s unicameral approach relies on citizen participation, the Supreme Court, and the governor for checks and balances. Notably, Australia’s Queensland operates with a unicameral system, challenging the notion that size determines legislative structure. In contrast, New Zealand abolished its upper house in the 1950s.

Initially, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont experimented with unicameral legislatures, emphasizing a true democracy without class distinctions. However, each state eventually shifted to a bicameral system in later years. The United States, except for Nebraska, maintains a bicameral structure at the federal level, demonstrating the complexity and adaptability of legislative systems.

Nebraska’s unicameral system relies on citizen voting, petitions, the Supreme Court, and the governor for checks and balances, maintaining governmental stability.

New Zealand abolished its upper house in the early 1950s when the Opposition party took control, and the decision was voted upon, marking a significant shift in the country’s legislative structure.

The U.S. founders, grappling with representation and power distribution, established a bicameral system through the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.