|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 No Definition of the term
- 2 On citations
- 3 Slovenia
- 4 External Links
- 5 etymology
- 6 Anglican Diocesan Synods.
- 7 Merge with Senate?
- 8 Italian Parliament
- 9 More Vandalism
- 10 Pakistan is not a federation
- 11 Name of Austrian Parliament
- 12 European Union
- 13 USSR under US?
- 14 Canadian Senate
- 15 1st sentence: "compromise bills"?
- 16 The Justification of Bicameralism
- 17 Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism
- 18 Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism
- 19 Upper/lower chambers in the U.S. Congress
- 20 Purpose of Bicameralism
- 21 Don't confuse the issue with federalism
- 22 Guardian Council vs House of Lords
No Definition of the term
As a visitor who never encountered the word or term Bicameralism before, there is no definition. The first line "Bicameralism is an essential and defining feature of the classical notion of Mixed Government." doesn't define the term, except by other terms (mixed government - what's that?) Compare with typing Defintion Bicameralism into google, where you get the definition "(bicameral) composed of two legislative bodies". I would make this edit myself, but I'm not a political scientist, and want to make sure it's accurate, so would prefer to defer to an expert. (But could that expert remember to write for the masses). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A lack of citation does not constitute a justification for deletion. Refrain from deleting an ostensibly credible article for merely not providing a works cited. Merely note that it needs to be cited using the appropriate notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddd1600 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Slovenia does not have unicameral legislative system. It has a functional second chamber - the Council of the state (Državni svet). It is a weird institution with little power and calls for its abolition are quite common, but it exists and works. So, I guess that the map seems to be wrong. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Why, I wonder, are there no external links listed? We should search for links with Canadian blogs and resources, including those related to current and historical issues, major authors and contributers, and other seminal resources. --pooMbcudmore 15:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
hmmm... the U.S. has a bicameral legislature. It has a Congress: it doesn't have a Parliament, bicameral or otherwise. -- Someone else 20:06 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, I've tried to made it clear that this page covers both legislatures and parliaments. Alex756 04:20, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Ah, but you're being frustrated in your goal by the article's title. Not that I can necessarily think of a better one. -- Someone else 04:22, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I though of breaking the redirect, but I really don't think we need four different articles for bicameral parliament, bicameral legislature, unicameral parliament and unicameral legislature — the basic political science concept is the same and after all Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Alex756 04:30, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- It's only disk space, and four redirects is fewer than many less informative articles have. I don't think it's just a dictionary definition, but if it were, it wouldn't belong under any name. What would you call the common concept? Bicameral body or Bicameral assembly or Bicameral assemblage? bicamerality? -- Someone else 04:37, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I think the most basic term is legislature or legislative body, that come from the latin because it is a place where laws (leg) are made. Of course someone else would argue that parliament come from the French, parler and that in English common law countries where we have the Law French tradition one should use parliament, but no one calls the US Congress a parliament and that has been confused with the adoption, albeit after the fact, of the term parliamentary system as mostly applying to Commonwealth countries. The basic line here is that I don't think parliament or legislature really need to be distinguished much, as words they mean the same thing, and I do not think using an adjective (bicameral or unicameral) as a page name is a good idea. If you want to start making redirects I could think of a long list of alternates to which bicameral and unicameral could be tacked onto such as: deliberative body, deliberative assembly, legislative assembly, leglislative body, general assembly, deliberative organ of government, legislative council, legislative chamber, house of representatives, legislature, national assembly, parliament, or maybe even bicameralism etc., ... Unless I come on one of these terms being used and not redirected here, I see no reason to create orphaned redirects; actually maybe some of those articles should be merged together, there are a lot of different terms basically that mean the same thing. Alex756 05:11, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the end of the paragraph about aristocratic bicameralism " and the ability of the House of Lords to block legislation has been reduced." The Lords act did not change the powers of the house of lords, it merely reduced the number of hereditary peers.
- The most recent changes might not have, but the earlier Parliament Act (1911) did, didn't it? I've readded the sentence. -- Vardion 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to see a little etymology. For instance "kamer" is Dutch for "chamber". --MarSch 15:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- The term "bicameralism" (along with, I presume, the Dutch word) comes from the Latin "camera", meaning "chamber". (Plus "bi", meaning "two", of course). I'm unclear on the policy regarding etymologies, however — maybe it's better at Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia? I wouldn't really know. -- Vardion 20:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
A bicameral legislature gave the people in early North American colonization a chance to raise taxes and make new laws, thus making them (the colonists) more independant as a colony. Therefor, this helped them to become independant and be able to control there own nation with smart governmental decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anglican Diocesan Synods.
Surely, one can also regard the Diocesan Synods in the Anglican Church as being a bicameral system - House of Clergy & House of Laity. As one who has been to a Synod, I know this is definitely the case here in Wellington, New Zealand. - (Aidan Work 06:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC))
Merge with Senate?
The article Bicamerialism may be merged with Senate. Why? Senate is the most common term for the noble chamber in a bicameral system.126.96.36.199 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- 1)As you've said, not all of them are called Senate and 2)Not every Senate is part of a 'Bicameral System' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In spite of the common use to consider the Chamber of Deputies as a lower house and the Senate as an upper house by Italian people, these two chambers have same role and power. --184.108.40.206 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some more vandalism in the form of "your mom" jokes on the side legislature panel. Does anyone know what should be in its place?
--xxazurewrathxx 23:11, 01 October 2007 (UTC)
Pakistan is not a federation
Pakistan has several provinces and representation in the Pakistan legislature is partly based upon those provinces, but Pakistan is not a Federal country. The text of the article currently implies that it is. In fact the reference to Pakistan should be moved to the following paragraph about South Africa, which is comparable in that it also has provinces but is no longer a federal country. Eregli bob 04:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Name of Austrian Parliament
The name of the Austrian Parliament is just "Parlament" (in German without "i"). "Bundesvesammlung" is a joint session of both houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The European Union is no a bicameral system. It has three bodies: the parliament, the commission and the council of ministers. Of them, the only elected body, the parliament, does not have any real law making powers. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The EU is actually bicameral (The Parliament being one part and the European Council/Council of the European Union being the other). The Commission is the Executive, not part of the legislature. It can only initiate legislation, it cannot vote on it. On an unrelated note, which you brought up; the Council is made up of Ministers or heads of State/Government of the Member States, so they have indeed been elected by their citizens. The Commission is proposed by the Member States' Governments (elected officials) and is then voted on by the European Parliament (elected officials). If you are saying that this makes the Commission "unelected" then you should take a look at who actually elects the US President. If you think it's the citizens directly then you're in for a surprise! Finally, the Parliament does have real law making powers. 80% of its proposed ammendments make it through to law; a much higher percentage than in any of the Member States! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
USSR under US?
"Congress in the United States which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives; all of the state legislatures except USSR are also bicameral." Can anyone explain what USSR meant here? Is it a state under US? --Csmth (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on the Senate of Canada implies that legislation cannot originate in the senate, but in fact only money bills have to originate in the Commons. Senators can introduce bills, which are designated with an S. Also, the tone of the section is not very neutral. - Stevebeck (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
1st sentence: "compromise bills"?
The Justification of Bicameralism
The Justification of Bicameralism (by William H. Riker) International Political Science Review. This is a very insightful paper that favors bicameralism. Komitsuki (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism
Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism by SAMUEL C. PATTERSON AND ANTHONY MUGHAN. This is another insightful resource for bicameralism. Komitsuki (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism
Senates and the Theory of Bicameralism by Samuel C. Patterson and Anthony Mughan. I think this would help. Komitsuki (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Upper/lower chambers in the U.S. Congress
After seeing this this discussion, I've tagged the statement that "In the United States both houses of the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are co-equals and there is no "upper" or "lower" chamber and no hierarchical relationship between them, although the House is colloquially (and incorrectly) referred to as the lower house, and the Senate the upper house. This is due to their original location in the two-story building that was to house them." as dubious. First, the source supporting this statement does not seem reliable enough for us to use. Second, the reference to the Senate as the upper chamber comes mostly from the powers it has that the House doesn't. Namely, the confirmation of presidential appointees and ratification of treaties. -- Calidum 16:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The system of two chambers is modeled on the UK, where there is an upper and lower house. The lower house is where money bills begin in both cases. The term senate means by definition upper house. Senators have seniority (the two words are related) over representatives, the president of the Senate has seniority over the speaker of the House of Representatives just as the Lord Chancellor had seniority over the speaker of the House of Commons. TFD (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Purpose of Bicameralism
Don't confuse the issue with federalism
Federalism and bicameralism are independent of each other, yet much of this article trips over itself trying to create links between the two. It's as if the notion of two-tier sovereignty (federalism) has infected the thought processes involved in discussing two-chamber legislatures (bicameralism).
It seems to me that the only relevance of federalism to bicameralism is that some federal states (most notably the USA) impose upon their federal upper house a responsibility to provide a stronger voice to less populous regions of the federation – which may also serve as a justification for retaining a bicameral legislature in situations where its pertinence is called into question. However, the regional-representation role is hardly fundamental to the existence of bicameralism. Moreover, the true value of a federal state comes from the allocation of jurisdiction between the federal and federated levels: not from the limited role of regional representatives in the federal upper house.
Guardian Council vs House of Lords
Surely, at least on paper, the Iranian government appears to be a Bicameral Congress, where the Guardian Council acts as an Upper Chamber, similar to the British House of Lords, US Senate, or Canadian Red Chamber (Senate)? The Expediency Discernment Council is only able to resolve conflicts between the two chambers, the Majlis and the Guardian Council, so it doesn't actually hold any of the legislative powers of a real chamber itself and therefore surely can't be counted as a third chamber, or can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)