Multicameral Legislature

[DominusNovus]

This is a three-parter that could go in any subforum but I figure there was the most variety in republics in the pre-1900 era, so it is here.

Part 1: How many chambers can a legislature have before it becomes unwieldy? The typical is unicameral or bicameral, but there have been a few tricameral legislatures:

Tricameralism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

With tricameral or more, what would be an effective way for such a legislature to do business? For example, might a bill in such a legislature simply require passage from a majority of chambers? Perhaps requiring all chambers to pass when overriding a veto.

Part 2: What ways might these different chambers represent society? This could be either within each chamber (representatives in this chamber are chosen by this method) or by chamber (this is the chamber for this group, this is the chamber for that group, such as the medieval estates general). Here are the most common currently:
- By population (like the US House)
- By local government (like the US Senate)

Where chambers are each representing different parts of society:
- By race/ethnicity
- By religion
- By sex
- By social class

There could be chambers where the right to vote (or amount of votes) for members varies on qualifiers:
- Tax Burden
- Military Service
- Age
- # of children

A wildcard would be a chamber chosen by lot - known as demarchy or sortition.

Part 3: What might the different rights/responsibilities of these chambers be? For example, in the US, spending bills have to originate in the House, while the Senate gets to confirm executive appointments, etc.

That should be a good start. Anyone have any additoonal ideas?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

This is a three-parter that could go in any subforum but I figure there was the most variety in republics in the pre-1900 era, so it is here.

Part 1: How many chambers can a legislature have before it becomes unwieldy? The typical is unicameral or bicameral, but there have been a few tricameral legislatures:

Tricameralism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

With tricameral or more, what would be an effective way for such a legislature to do business? For example, might a bill in such a legislature simply require passage from a majority of chambers? Perhaps requiring all chambers to pass when overriding a veto.

Part 2: What ways might these different chambers represent society? This could be either within each chamber (representatives in this chamber are chosen by this method) or by chamber (this is the chamber for this group, this is the chamber for that group, such as the medieval estates general). Here are the most common currently:
- By population (like the US House)
- By local government (like the US Senate)

Where chambers are each representing different parts of society:
- By race/ethnicity
- By religion
- By sex
- By social class

There could be chambers where the right to vote (or amount of votes) for members varies on qualifiers:
- Tax Burden
- Military Service
- Age
- # of children

A wildcard would be a chamber chosen by lot - known as demarchy or sortition.

Part 3: What might the different rights/responsibilities of these chambers be? For example, in the US, spending bills have to originate in the House, while the Senate gets to confirm executive appointments, etc.

That should be a good start. Anyone have any additoonal ideas?

The US House is also by locality. Each state draws boundaries for its Congressional districts, unless its small population leads it to only get 1 Representative. I suppose you could have something like one local chamber (US House), one state/provincial/regional one (US Senate), and one proportionally elected at the national level. If you go with chambers representing each part of society, I think a chamber with x-seats for ethnicity y and z seats for ethnicity w is more likely than separate chambers for each ethnic group.

 

[Born in the USSA]

I recall a thread to create the most convoluted governing system possible and I think the end result had distinct houses to represent the interests of the commons, nobility, clergy, merchants, lawyers (?), farmers, &c, all with separate purviews, powers and eligibility requirements.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Sweden and Finland were arguably tetracameral for a period. The four chambers represented the nobility, clergy, burghers and peasants.

Tetracameralism - Wikipedia

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

- US House
- US Senate
- US Military

 

[Arkenfolm]

I think the easiest way is to have it emerge out of the three estates or a similar system (like the Scandinavian four estates). Nobles, clergy, and commoners would all have separate powers given to them which would gradually increase as they demand more of a say in government than absolutism permits. Long-run the commoners would have the most political power with nobles and clergy each being similar to the House of Lords yet each with different privileges and power. In a modern nation, the clergy would be interesting given anticlericalism and decreased levels of religiosity. If it's Catholic, then even moreso given the Catholic Church has usually been more conservative than national churches in Northern Europe (and it's giving the Vatican a say in the government).

It would be interesting to apply such a system to the United States where the "nobility" would presumably include lifetime appointments (perhaps as recognition of service or perhaps simply purchased for a high fee) while "commoners" would be the House of Representatives. The "clergy" would be a separate chamber set aside for ordained ministers appointed by state legislatures. Obviously you'd need a totally different Constitution for this. Once again, I think the "clergy" would get abolished once it becomes apparent that Catholic priests or Jewish rabbis might get to serve in Congress if a state legislature votes them in.

- US House
- US Senate
- US Military

Modern Burma is kind of like this since their military has a massive public role in society, eats up a significant chunk of the national budget, and is guaranteed 1/4 of all seats in their parliament meaning they act as a check on both houses in that country.

 

[Frrf]

The Reichstag of the Holy Roman Empire was officially tricarmeral (in reality it was much more complicated than that, as is the general tendency with the HRE). The first chamber was the College of Electors, which had the primary function of (unanimously) electing the Emperor. The second chamber was the College of Imperial Princes, consisting of all immediate vassals of the Empire, both secular and ecclesiastical, however the secular and ecclesiastical princes met separately. Additionally, as votes were based on fiefs, some princes had multiple votes, while Counts and Lords had to first meet in smaller councils to decide how to cast their shared vote. The third chamber was the Imperial Free Cities.
Things were further complicated when religion was discussed, as all three chambers would split into Catholic and Protestant halves, function as two entirely separate parliaments, and then reconcile their decisions.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Perhaps rather than ending up being abolished, the principle of the University constituencies in Westminster systems could be separated and expanded upon into its own house, with members elected from the nationwide bodies of various professions, with the purpose of ensuring the presence of MPs in Parliament with diverse sets of technical and humanities expertise.