Bicameral Structure of Congress

Congress has two chambers: Senate and House of Representatives

Senate is smaller; each state has two senators
House is larger; each state has a number of representatives proportional to its population
Founding Fathers chose bicameralism for historical, theoretical, and practical reasons
The Constitution created a bicameral national legislaturethat is, a Congress composed of two separate
chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The Senate, sometimes called "the upper house," is smaller (currently 100 seats) and its members serve
longer terms (six years). Each state, no matter how large or small, has equal representation (two seats each)
in the Senate.
The House of Representatives, a.k.a. "the lower house," is much larger (currently 435 seats) and its
members serve much shorter terms (two years). Representation in the House is proportional to population,
so larger states receive many more seats than do smaller states.
Both houses have certain unique powers and responsibilities, but for the most part, the House and Senate
work in parallel. That is to say, senators and congressmen perform broadly similar functions in the national
government. Both houses have to pass any piece of proposed legislation for it to become law. The House
and the Senate are arguably redundant institutions.
Why, then, did the Constitution create a bicameral legislature? Why not merge the House and Senate into a
single unicameral legislative body?
There are three main reasons.
The first was a matter of historical precedent. While the American colonists had rebelled against British rule
in the Revolutionary War, they still drew many of their ideas about government from their colonial
experience as British subjects. And the British Parliament had two housesan upper chamber, the House of
Lords, filled with representatives of the aristocracy, and a lower chamber, the House of Commons, filled
with representatives of the ordinary people. That example shaped the thinking of the Constitution's framers.
The second was more theoretical. The framers' emphasis on the idea of checks and balances led them to be
suspicious that a unicameral legislature might consolidate too much power in one institution. By dividing
legislative power between the House and the Senate, the two chambers would serve as checks against each
other's authority, theoretically preventing either from ever gaining tyrannical power.
The third, and by far the most important, was a matter of practical politics. The Constitutional Convention
included delegates from twelve of the original thirteen states. (Rhode Island boycotted the whole thing.)
Those delegates came from small states and large states. The small states, afraid of losing influence in the
new government, demanded that representation in Congress be awarded on an equal basis to all states, no
matter how large or small. But the large states insisted, no less forcefully, that representation should be
based on population; since larger states had more voters, they ought to have more votes in Congress, too.
This fierce dispute over representation dragged on throughout the summer of 1787, threatening to derail the
entire Constitutional Convention. But a bicameral legislature provided the perfect opportunity for
compromisein fact, for "The Great Compromise." Small states got their equal representation in the
Senate, large states got their proportional representation in the House, and everyone went home happy.
But was "The Great Compromise" really so great? If the first principle of democracy is "one person, one

vote," then how democratic is the United States Senate? Today, the largest state (California, home to more
than 36.5 million people) has a population about 73 times larger than the smallest state (Wyoming, home to
just over 500,000). But the two states' representation in the Senate is equaltwo seats each. That arguably
means that an individual voter from Wyoming is worth 73 times as much as any one Californian. Is that
fair? Is that democratic? (Your answer to that question will probably depend on whether you live in
Cheyenne or San Francisco.) On the one hand, the current system does ensure that places like Wyoming
aren't entirely ignored in our national politics. On the other hand, it hardly seems fair to deny Californians
(and Texans, New Yorkers, and residents of other large states) the right to "one person, one vote."
Whatever you think about the justice of equal representation in the Senate, the system is here to stay. Article
V of the Constitution guarantees that no state can ever be stripped of its equal representation in the Senate
without giving its consent...and Wyoming is no more likely to agree to that now than the small states were
back in 1787.
So if you don't like the current setup, maybe you should just move to Canada. Or Wyoming.
Unicameral legislature
Contribute your ideas for this topic
Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic. Below are links to selected articles
in which the topic is discussed.

major reference

constitutional law: Unicameral and bicameral legislatures

A central feature of any constitution is the organization of the legislature. It may be a
unicameral body with one chamber or a bicameral body with two chambers.
Unicameral legislatures are typical in small countries with unitary systems of
government (e.g., Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Israel, and New Zealand) or in very small
countries (e.g., Andorra, Dominica, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Malta,...

comparison with bicameral system

bicameral system
Although the Continental Congresses and the Congress of the Confederation had been
unicameral, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 decided that the new national
legislature should consist of two branches in order to preserve the identity of the
separate states, safeguard the influence of the smaller states, and protect the interests
of property.

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-bicameral-and-vs-unicameral/
Difference Between Bicameral and Unicameral

Posted on September 14, 2011 by Aron

Bicameral vs Unicameral
Bicameral and Unicameral are two types of legislature that show some difference between them in terms of
their functioning and characteristics. Bicameral legislature has an upper house. On the other hand,
unicameral legislature does not have an upper house. This is a major difference between the two words.
The duty of the upper house of the bicameral legislature is to revise, improve, and amend the laws normally
with less party pressure. All the activities concerned with bicameral legislature are normally carried out in a
calm atmosphere. Another way of defining both bicameral and unicameral types of legislature is that
bicameral has 2 houses, whereas unicameral legislature has only one house.
Their names are derived from the two words, bi and uni meaning two and one respectively. A
unicameral legislature has a single body of law makers. On the other hand, a bicameral legislature has two
bodies of law makers. This is another important difference between the two words. One of the best examples
of bicameral type of legislature is the congress of the United States of America.
The Congress of the United States of America has one body comprising of the senate and the other body
comprising of the house. In the same way, the English Parliament is also bicameral in nature. One house of
the English Parliament is the house and the Lords and the other house of the English Parliament is the
Commons.
Sometimes, the difference between bicameral and unicameral is defined in terms of the parties. When you
have two parties that are usually fighting in office it is bicameral. On the other hand, when you have a party
dominated office either at the right wing or the left wing then the office can be called as unicameral. These
are the differences between bicameral and unicameral.