Whenever elections come around, we must choose who will represent us. The core of our democracy is the vote. If one Iowa Senator has his way, Iowans will be voting for representatives to only one legislative body.

On Feb. 17 Sen. Ron Halvorsen, D-Ft. Dodge, proposed a bill to change Iowa’s legislature to a unicameral system. Currently, Iowa has a Senate and House of Representatives.

The bill proposes that the name of the body be the “General Assembly of the State of Iowa.” But, from what Halvorsen says, there are justifiable reasons to switch to a unicameral system.

Halvorsen, who has been state legislator for 19 years, said accountability, cost and efficiency would be the highlights of a unicameral system. Legislators would be more accountable to their constituents, he said, because the people would have an easier time keeping track of one representative instead of two. Also, because politicians tend to blame the other party or chamber when a bill is not passed, a single general assembly would be held accountable for all bill action. “I believe we need more accountability,” he added.

A unicameral legislative system would also be more cost-effective, Halvorsen said. With a smaller governmental body, less money would be spent on salaries, staff and space. “In the immediate consequence of unicameral[ism], you save dollars,” he said. People would probably notice this aspect of a unicameral system first, he added.

The third reason why Halvorsen thinks we should have a unicameral system is that it would be more efficient than the current process. Halvorsen says other governmental bodies, such as school boards, city councils and county boards of supervisors, have efficient unicameral systems. With fewer holds and red tape in the legislative process, unicameralism would respond quickly to a changing world and a changing Iowa.

Over 200 years ago, the framers of the United States Constitution designed the federal legislative process to be bicameral, with a House of Representatives to represent the people and a Senate to represent the states.

All 50 states modeled their legislatures after the national system when they created their individual governments. “The states mimicked and copied” the federal system, Halvorsen said. At that time, people fought for states’ rights and feared a loss of their own rights under a powerful government. This was a time when people wanted government to be inefficient, Halvorsen said. Inefficiency spelled less government stronghold over the people. Since then, only one state, Nebraska, has adopted a unicameral system.

But the framers’ intention to have the Senate represent the states and the House represent the people doesn’t exactly cross over to the state level. Sure, state representatives represent the people, but state senators don’t represent a territory. Instead, a state senator’s district is drawn according to population sizes to represent the people.

Two-hundred years has brought change to our nation and to our state. Halvorsen thinks the change should carry over into government. The current “archaic” legislative system prevents government from reacting quickly to change. “We need to react more quickly,” he said.

The current bill supports only one of two traits of Nebraska’s unicameral system. Since 1937, their legislature’s members have been elected without political-party affiliation to the single house. Halvorsen’s proposal doesn’t eliminate party affiliation from the legislative picture. Nebraska’s non-partisanship is “exactly what people don’t like about Nebraska,” he said. Partisanship is important because the political party is how most Iowans get general information on issues. Halvorsen cites a loss of accountability as the major downfall to a non-partisan system.

This is especially true in Iowa. Iowa is the state that the nation looks to in primary season. Political candidates of both parties frequent Iowa because of its importance on the political map. They vie for the partisanship of Iowans. With such fervor for partisanship, it’s impossible for this to happen at the state level. Partisanship is the heart of our system.

Because of lack of public support for change, Halvorsen’s proposal will probably not make it into law. “There’s no strong public sentiment for change,” he said. But maybe Iowans and the nation should look into Halvorsen’s proposal. Who can argue against an efficient, cost-effective and accountable government? Isn’t that what the framers intended? instead of being bogged-down by its own system, government should work, .

“I’m afraid there’s too much tradition behind our bicameral system,” Halvorsen said.

Although tradition can be described as honorable and strong, change can be better. Change has torn down some traditions we, as a nation or region, have held. Without change, women and minorities wouldn’t have the right to vote. Without change, segregation and slavery would stand strong. Without change, we wouldn’t have technological developments that launched the space program. Without change, our nation wouldn’t help people around the world stand up for human rights. Without change, our nation wouldn’t develop educational standards for our children.

Change can be good. And as Halvorsen put it, “we need to be able to change government to what is changing in our world and [in] technology.”

---

Erin Payne is a junior in journalism and mass communication and political science from Rock Rapids.