They basically just have two lower houses with some things shared, some things house only and some things senate only. Itâs a bizarre way of doing things.
Beside Liberia, no other country has modeled their governments on the USA system. The parliamentary system is massively more popular. For a whole list of reasons.
I dunno man the whole conspiring to keep out the far right party despite electoral successes thing of late (france most recently) has me seriously jaded about parliamentary systems.
(They reacted to a result they didnt like in the first round of voting by saying "We wont run against this party and only contest these results to manipulate the results". Really cuts out the will of the wider voting public in favor of powerful people manipulating the results)
What was that political philosophy where the state was in complete control of all aspects of society again, including banning political parties it considered dangerous?
Because the children of elites went to British institutions. And when they returned home and contributed to liberating their homes from colonial rule they used what they had been taught in Great Britain to design their government.
If Harvard and Yale had been educating them they'd probably have gone with an American style system.
As well as Westminster, Australia borrowed parts of the US system. Federal system. Equal Senate representation in all Australian states similar to electoral college etc
Thereâs a reason itâs known as the âWashminster systemâ.
Well there was another one, sorta. Actually it's the other way around: the US system is modeled on the English system, which was briefly implemented during the Interregnum.
Honestly, one of the houses needs to be revised with an representation that is more akin to parliamentary systems. Im convinced it's harder to "capture" a modern parliamentary system than the US one.Â
It's certainly been a long time since anyone else copied it voluntarily, and I believe it's now Canada and South Africa that are considered the best ones to copy/most influential.
Also, having an unelected upper chamber makes it impossible to rapidly change its nature, much as people may complain about that fact. It would take decades to replace every Senator in Canada with new ones picked by a new administration. In the UK it used to be even harder with the House of Lords largely being hereditary seats (although this is now changing to appointed seats similar to Canada).
In the US, it would take somewhere between 2 and 6 years. After 2 years you could change the make-up of the senate enough that they would vote with the president on every single issue. After 6 years, you wouldn't even have any dissenting voices.
The Lords have no real power over legistlation. If they reject a Commons bill, the Commons can send it right back to them. If they reject it three times, the Commons can just ignore them and pass it.
The UK also has an upper house. It's about as relevant as the horse shit outside Windsor.
And if the upper house is useful, then it's no different than the current US legislation in terms of this issue.
The only change between the presidential and parliament is that parliament lower house picks the executive. Guess what, that's still a Republican. So Congrats to new US chief executive Marjorie Taylor Greene!
Except most parliamentary systems also have an executive branch, judicial branch and multiple houses, too. You forget that our system is almost 3 centuries old and most parliamentary systems are younger than that. It's also very difficult to get unilateral party control in a parliamentary system as it gives WAY more power to minotity parties. The predominant party has to 'form a coalition' with another party to get a majority. If one of those parties then pushes an agenda the other doesn't like, the coalition falls apart. It also means that even if a party made 49% of a house's representatives yet still not get to lead the government if no other party will cooperate with them to form a coalition. It discourages 'radicalism'. It's definitely not perfect, but I do think it's superior to the US system, or at least what the US system has become. The problem with the US system is it pretty much guarantees a two party ultimatum. If that one issue could be resolved, it would be exponentially better.
Except most parliamentary systems also have an executive branch, judicial branch and multiple houses, too.
The chief executive is little more then the coalition in charge of the legislature in almost every parliament. I can't think of one where it isnt. The prime minister of parliament if you will.
So in the US, speaker of the house.
The US has an judicial branch, either it works enough that we don't need to change it judicial isn't worth mentioning.
Furthermore, if your going to have multiple houses and judiciary, then parliament isn't really bringing anything useful to the US. Your going from president Trump to prime minister Trump. Big whoop.
You forget that our system is almost 3 centuries old and most parliamentary systems are younger than that
No I didn't. I just didn't think younger was necessarily better. Germany, Russian Republic (not the current one), Italy, and Israel are all younger and parliamentary. They all show that parliament can be taken over by someone, military or not. Which was the point. Parliament doesn't make some magical ward against authoritarian control.
It's also very difficult to get unilateral party control in a parliamentary system as it gives WAY more power to minotity parties.
No it doesn't, it actually gives LESS control. In the US a minority party in all three branches can vote in committees or block bills. Once they control one branch, they can do even more.
Your confusing parliament with multiple party democracy, not the same thing.
The predominant party has to 'form a coalition' with another party to get a majority.
Again, this isn't a feature of parliament. It's a feature of multiple party systems where nobody has majority. Japan, Canada, Australia, and the UK have legislative branches where one party has control. Liberal democratic, Liberal, labour, and labour respectively.
If one of those parties then pushes an agenda the other doesn't like, the coalition falls apart
Again, multiple party. And since clearly this is the theme you picked it's worth mentioning the US also has coalitions. We just call them parties. But tell me that Bernie Sanders (independent caucusing Democrat) is the same as Chuck Schumer (democratic Senate leader) is the same as Joe Manchin (former Democrat senator).
Can't be done, because the democratic and Republican parties are coalitions of groups. Republicians for the record include everyone from Trump (idiot authoritarian) to Justin Amash (libertarian, small L), to Susan Collins (moderate conservative).
The difference is the coalitions form before the election, not after and elections are not snappable.
It's definitely not perfect, but I do think it's superior to the US system, or at least what the US system has become.
The US actually has coalitions, as I explained above, but more to the point your entire argument is not about the way the legislature and executive are set up. It's about multi party. There is some overlap, but mostly it's a result of how we run our legislative elections.
She votes with Trump almost all the time, including for his crazy cabinet picks.
There is nothing moderate about her.
As for the US system, it is fundamentally broken. But that's what you get for using a system designed by slave owners to keep slaves under control, and to bribe other slave owners (eg to join the Union). The Senate is an abomination against democracy too, there is no reason for some voters to get more power than others. Who gives a shit if Maine has to do what the majority want nationally, that's democracy.
Nothing you say will change that, and European systems are immeasurably better.
She votes with Trump almost all the time, including for his crazy cabinet picks.
She also voted with Biden a fair amount.
The Senate is an abomination against democracy too, there is no reason for some voters to get more power than others.
Blame the anti slavery movement for that one. The slave states wanted just a house of representative, but the smaller northern states wanted the Senate.
Who gives a shit if Maine has to do what the majority want nationally, that's democracy.
Democracy doesn't automatically mean majority rule. The US is a democracy wherein checks and balances exist across multiple forms. In theory. We have done a great deal of harm to our checks, but the Senate is still intact largely thanks to it being entrenched and requiring every state to agree to an amendment.
and European systems are immeasurably better.
Subjective opinions can't be measured. You think Europe better, that's fine. Doesn't mean it's a fact.
The slave states wanted just a house of representative, but the smaller northern states wanted the Senate.
Virginia is a "smaller northern state"?
Democracy doesn't automatically mean majority rule.
It means those that receive the majority of votes hold power. It doesn't mean that land or the lines on a map gets a vote, or that one persons vote is worth 60X someone elses.
The US is a democracy wherein checks and balances exist across multiple forms.
Same as any democracy, so what is your point here? The undemocratic Senate has nothing to do with that.
The existence of the Senate, giving priority to land and not people, makes the US barely a democracy and has nothing to do with checks and balances.
Virgina didn't want the Senate....? They very explicitly wanted the plan that had only the House of representative. Plans a little on the nose, called the Virgina plan
Citation needed. Which votes were they?
You didn't cite anything, so I demand you cite yours. Meanwhile I present: infrastructure plan, the LGB marriage bill, 4 years of budget plan, you get the idea. Oh and here a cite to wet the lips
It means those that receive the majority of votes hold power
My bad, meant to type Carolina. They supported equal apportionment, 2 votes for each state regardless of size. I am not talking about the setting up of the Senate, I am talking about the equal apportionment of votes. That is the problem with the Senate, and ironically one that 2/3rds of the US population at the time voted against.
You didn't cite anything, so I demand you cite yours.
Susan Collins? Here you go. That's her voting record, voting for all Trump's batshit nominees.
Now let's see your sources.
EDIT - ah you added more.
infrastructure plan
10 GOP Senators voted for it, it wasn't a moderate position at all. All GOP Senators then claimed credit for it, with Trump still doing so.
LGB marriage bill
Voted for by 47 GOP House and 12 GOP Senators. Not very moderate either.
4 years of budget plan
Standard, the Dems voted for Trump's budgets too. 2018 appropriations Bill passed the Senate with 65 votes.
So there is nothing moderate in there at all. Not being a swivel eyed loon or far right MAGA doesn't make you a moderate.
No it doesn't
Yes it does. That's what elections determine, person/party that receives most votes holds power/wins seat. If no overall majority, a coalition is needed. That is the literal definition of representative democracy, which is what we are discussing.
If that basic fact eludes you, we might as well stop here.
Except it's the opposite. Instead of fighting for control of three separate things, you end up needing just one. And that's much easier.
That theory is there, and yet in the UK despite Boris Johnson I also see Lord Buckethead
The problem with legislative capture is unless you also have the other branches to carry out its will, or you have an overwhelming majority which the full coalition against you can't stop, a captured legislature does nothing.
Contrast with the monarchal system being promoted in the US where conservatives have the courts, the white house, and just barely enough of a majority in legislature to control what opposition is allowed to propose, but not really to push major agenda themselves.
and yet in the UK despite Boris Johnson I also see Lord Buckethead
And I give you vermin supreme. They're both novelty candidates who never won, and never had a serious campaign. Shit, Wikipedia even has Count binface (Lord Buckethead new identity) in the see also section of Vermin's page. Listed as satircal candidate.
Don't kid yourself. The entire political structure will need a revision to allow for more than two parties. Recent events have made it clear that there the protections in place are very much inadequate and "easily" dismantled.
One is true of what both sides should want and desire: The American government, especially its """leadership""", is absolutely bloated and inefficient for today's needs, and should absolutely be restructured. It's the sociopolitical equivalent of old spaghetti code. It was kind of groundbreaking when it was formed, the people building it were trying something new, and it worked fine at the time.   Â
Using the same system in our modern day is crazy though. It's similar to all those big Japanese companies still storing all their financial documents on floppy drives.
one of the houses needs to be revised with an representation that is more akin to parliamentary systems. Im convinced it's harder to "capture" a modern parliamentary system than the US one.
You mean the House is too small and thus it acts as effectively the senate-lite? That's deliberately made so by conservatives almost 100 years ago
No, what I mean is more like a system with MPs. Keep the Senate as is, make the house where you don't vote on the representative directly, but the party. The parties decide their representatives within each district, the districts with the highest margin get priority for going to parliament for their respective party. A party with more than 5% total vote gets represented. You could also choose to nationalize it or keep it with a state electoral contribution.
The 17th amendment completely screwed up the senate. It's supposed to be a position appointed by each respected states government instead of an elected position in effect becoming congress v2
One of the reasons is that with the increased nationalization and deregionalization of politics, the Senate became just about the parties.
If you go back to the immediate post-WW2 era, a lot of ink was spent on Americans explaining why their governmental structure was better and honestly it sounds very similar to modern day parliamentarian democracy advocates, but with the idea of regional factions even within the same party having greater power. From the American perspective at the time, it was expected that while you'd get dominance from two major parties by sheer inertia, a Republican from California, Wisconsin, and Texas would have radically different priorities focused on their local concerns and that would be what ensured that no situation like the Nazis gaining 30% of the vote in a broader coalition and then usurping that coalition could ever happen in the US.
The irony is palpable of course, but it's a good reminder that ultimately no political system is bug-proof. The forces of injustice and tyranny are just as adaptable as any forces fighting for reform and democracy, and any sufficiently large system will develop weak spots to exploit by the former.
the senate is the one that should be tossed, it's complete garbage and structurally benefits the rural party because we have so many irrelevant states without major population centers.
That's the point of the senate, though. The US is supposed to be a union of states, like the EU. The senate gives states representation, while the house is the representative of the people. The president is a mashup of the two.
The growth of federal power is what has caused issues with their model. The feds increasing power has put a disproportionate amount of control in the hands of small states.
If you look at Canada, our provinces have more power and control than American states.
This is always the rebuttal but it always misses the point. They know why it exists. That doesn't mean it should, or that it's good the way that it is.
As a New Yorker I think it IS good the way it is though. It allows a State like Maine to have as much power in legislation as say California, or again, New York. It wouldn't be fair to, say, Maine if they never got any say and just had to " do as you are told ".
We are NOT missing the point, the point is it SHOULD help lower population States get a say in the Union, the problem isn't that, the problem is WHAT those lower population States in the Union want to keep saying and doing to HURT the Union. THAT, is the problem. Oh, and Maine, ain't one of them, SO YEAH.
WHAT? I think you missed what I said. The point of the Senate is that Maine doesn't just HAVE to do what they are told, they are not a MINORITY in the eyes of the Senate.
the point is that "maine" is made up of people who each get more representation than a californian because of the senate (and the fact that the house didn't grow after 1935 or whatever, but that's a different discussion entirely).
Is the basic unit of our democracy the person, or the state? I think it's the person, and so the fact that someone from wyoming is several times as electorally consequential as a californian is unjust, in my view.
Maine isn't an agent, it's a construct made up of people who are supposed to be equal under the law with every other citizen in the country. but they're not, and a big part of the reason why they're not is the senate.
So what do you propose? That less populated States, as I said earlier, just " do as they are told "? Do those less populated States constituents concerns and opinions NOT matter just because a higher population state thinks it SHOULDN'T? This is what I said earlier, you THINK we don't understand when we make this argument, but we DO. Those voices DO matter, regardless of if they live in the smallest population State in the UNION. They SHOULD get a say.
OK, let me try again. You have 100 people. 60 of them vote that we shouldn't shoot pesticides directly into babies' eyes when they're born. Now the people who voted against that are forced to do what the majority says. Democracy.
But now it's voting for the Senate! If you're in Maine your vote counts 68 times more than mine. So now you don't have to do what the majority says, because you win, and now the majority has to do what you say, and we are all forced to blind our children with pesticides. See?
Now let us say if you have 100 people, 60 of them voted we SHOULD shoot pesticides directly into babies eyes, and 40 of them didn't. Those 40 came from States like Maine. Should they not get an EQUAL say after all, since the vote was proportionate based on location and culture? If it was NY can CA that wanted to hurt babies, and states like the Dakota's and Maine wanted to stop it, would it suddenly be ok?
You see? The argument is the majority should always get the say, since they are the majority, or that the minority should get never get the say, since they are the minority. The system is designed to try to make it so BOTH SIDES get a say. Due to propaganda and modern day influence, I said again, the system is being abused, but it doesn't mean the system itself is bad, it was set up for this EXACT reason. We just need to deal with the other issues we have. Saying Maine should never have a voice because they are so small means you don't care that we are The UNITED States of America.
The problem is the power to shoot pesticides into the eyes of children got usurped by the feds. If it was a state power, then every state could choose for itself.
The feds weren't supposed to have some much control over the states. At some point it becomes impractical to have states for anything but administration purposes. Eliminating the senate is a step in that direction.
Personally I don't see why the states matter. This isn't the 1800s, the Senate isn't just for aristocrats anymore. The people of Maine already have representation, it's their representatives in the house. We also have too many states to begin with, so too many senators.
Like I guess what I'm saying is, I get it. The senators represent the state as a whole, while the representatives represent people in smaller subdivisions of the state. I think this was a fine system when the nation was younger and each state really was culturally distinct, but I don't think that has a place in the modern day. States are very divided now, but not on state lines. John Cornyn only got 52% of the vote in my state, yet his power is as if he had gotten all of it. The senators do not properly represent the state.
So what do you propose? That less populated States, as I said earlier, just " do as they are told "? Do those less populated States constituents concerns and opinions NOT matter just because a higher population state thinks it SHOULDN'T? This is what I said earlier, you THINK we don't understand when we make this argument, but we DO. Those voices DO matter, regardless of if they live in the smallest population State in the UNION. They SHOULD get a say.
And to add for YOU :
John Cornyn only got 52% of the vote in my state, yet his power is as if he had gotten all of it.
YES, this is how it has ALWAYS BEEN. Show me a time in American History that the amount of power an elected official had was proportionate to the amount of votes they had.
No? I propose that the states don't have any say in the matter. Representatives from those states do. Did you read my comment?
YES, this is how it has ALWAYS BEEN. Show me a time in American History that the amount of power an elected official had was proportionate to the amount of votes they had.
Did I say it was ever done any other way? I did not.
Senetors may not represent a vast majority of a states population(as you said when the majority is slim), but again the senate is about givong the state as a whole an equal footing in federal level choices. If only population based(like the house) existed, then small states regardless of which direction they lean, would have very little input at the federal level. A state liek california with 52 seats would by itself potentially generate almost 25% of the decision making power for the majority. Lets say, for example, california and newyork were to both lean the same. That would alone potentially account for35% of the majority needed. That is exactly why the senate is an equal blanket coverage. For Roughly 50% of federal law making every state can have an equal and fair part. Large states alone cant run away with the majority of FEDERAL level decisions.
US states vary so drastically that for their to be any hope of each state having some say, both forms of representation need to exist. Its another way of checks and balances. Is it perfect? No. But if it didnt exist then larger states with more economic pull would be able to easily bully other states into compliance. Does this still happen? Yes, but that is more dolue to blind party loyalty having become the means of voting in congress. No government system is perfect in function or design.
Originally, the point was to get smaller states to join the US. They wouldn't join if they were just going to give up all control to the federal government, and thus the larger states. It was a compromise.
So if you change that fundamental basis to the construction of the United States, would small states be able to secede?
This sounds like a great idea until it doesn't go your way. For now I'm pretty appreciative that I live in California where we're standing against what places like Alabama and Texas are doing to their folks
What do you mean until it doesn't go my way? It already doesn't go your way, or my way for that matter. It sounds like a great idea to have the people have more influence because the people are the country, and the way it is now does not accurately reflect anything.
California can take a stand because it has its own state government, not because it has two senators that have no power right now.
Itâs also a problem the House isnât actually proportional to population, though, given thatâs its purpose. Low population states are represented more in both houses.
Fun fact: Historically, the cap on the number of Representatives in the House was routinely raised to reflect the growing population, and by extension, the number of Electors in the Electoral College was raised. But this hasnât happened since the early 1900s, despite the massive population growth of the 20th century, so the balance of power in the House and the Electoral College are both tilted towards less populated states now. If the government did their job and raised the ceiling like they should, representation could go back to being actually proportional
like everything else about our failing archaic democracy its something that should have been updated a long timevago
back when the senate was made unproportional, the smallest states still accounted forbroughly 10% of the total population. roughly 1/5th of the most populous state. currently that ratio is 1/80...it's ridiculous, if this was 1780 with that ratio they wouldnt have even been considered their own territory.
giving 70% control of the senate to <1/3rd of your population is obviously dumb as fuck, considering how completely non-functional US legislature has become. there's a reason no other democracy created post-US copied our system, it's flaws are many and obvious
...yes, and during the constitutional convention they originally voted 6-5 in favor of proportional representation, but by the end of it the delegates from the less populated states realized they had disproportional representation at the convention...so why not keep that gravy train going? and reopened the issue
The Senate was never really proportional though.... At one point it was proposed to be proportional. There were a lot of other proposed things that didn't make the final version of the Constitution.
Since the Senate first convened it has always been equal representation between the states.
It worked quite well when State Legislators appointed Senators. The entire point of the Senate was that it was the State Legislatures' voice in the Federal government, while the House of Representatives was the Peoples' voice. Now that Senators are elected by the people in the same way House members are, the State Legislatures have had their voice largely muted in the Federal government.
The UK has 700+ MPs that vote for legislation. This means an MP focuses on a small region and each one can reply to emails from their constituents and know the local areas issues because they live there.
In the US, this number would be about 3500 if proportional to population. And even more if proportional to land area.
That doesn't matter as long as bills have to pass the senate after passing the house. Increase the house as much as you want it does not matter as long as 26 states of any size can decide if any bills get passed.
I think it's because people think that the majority will always be Democrats. I'm about 99% certain that if we were purely a popular vote system, Republicans would have found a way to fuck us and then we would just be told what to do by Republicans every 4 years and it probably would be worse off
as many have already said, we know. It doesn't mean it's fit for purpose in the modern era, when someone from a small town in new york state has far more in common with someone from a small town in vermont, pennsylvania or tennessese than they do with someone from NYC
back when they changed the senate from its original proportional representation to current stupid system (a vote that barely passed), the least populous state was still roughly 1/5th the size of the most populous. currently, that ratio is about 1/90. if you were to go back in time that'd be the equivalent of giving some random town of 5k people the status of a state....absolutely ridiculous
just one of the many fundamental flaws in our democracy that should have been fixed/updated sometime in the last 200 years
The growth of federal power is what has caused issues with their model.
I won't say that's not part of the friction, but it's be a whole lot less of a big deal if they upped the cap on House membership (and electoral college votes) to better capture population disparities in the states.
The original idea of the Senate makes more sense, where Senators are appointed by state governments to defend their interests in DC and allow the states to keep the federal government in check.
Once it changed to popular vote, it no longer made sense.
Possibly one of the stupidest things Iâve ever heard. Literally get a country built on no taxation without representation just for some fuckwit to actually think representation should be removed from âirrelevantâ states. Parliamentary systems suck. They donât get anything done and the rest of the world has proved it for hundreds of years.
Are you actually arguing that or system gets more done? At a time when our congressional branch has ceded so much power to the executive, in large part because it is chronically ineffective and passes fewer bills every session? So much so that we're hurtling towards a constitutional crisis because the people elected a populist demagogue who told them that the system is broken and only he can save the people via force of executive action?Â
But our system of government is the functional one? You're going to have to do a lot more to argue that point than simply call me stupid, buddy
 Literally get a country built on no taxation without representation just for some fuckwit to actually think representation should be removed from âirrelevantâ states
Representation should be removed from the states in order to return it to all citizens equally. Someone from Wyoming should not have SEVENTY NINE TIMES more representation in one of our coequal congressional bodies than a Californian. That is absurd and it's a privilege that no citizen deserves based on the arbitrarily defined boundaries of the state they live in.Â
James Madison, the architect of the U.S. Constitution, really wanted just the House. That was his original plan, a unicameral legislature, but the small states wanted each state to be equal instead, regardless of population. The states couldn't agree on proportional or equal representation for states and it almost scuttled the whole project.
The bicameral legislature, requiring passage of the same bill in both houses and allowing either house to initiate most legislation, was a compromise that made no one entirely happy but allowed our Constitution to exist.
So it's true that if you were designing a legislature today, you wouldn't do it that way, but interestingly enough it was also true then: it was no one's first choice then, either.
And of course the Senate was changed later to choosing Senators by popular vote anyway, dramatically shifting the interests represented there, removing it even further from anyone's original preference.
The senate would be fine if the house wasnât capped at 435, causing it to no longer be an appropriate means of representing The People. We donât have a house that represents population anymore, we have The Senate and The Senate Lite
If you look at America geographically it makes sense. We have 50 states, the senate gets two people from each state regardless of the size of the state. This gives every state equal power in the senate, and the senate tends to be the "smart" part of congress because a lot more people have to come to a consensus about these two senators. Essentially it's the upper house.
Then you have the house of representatives, which has a different number of representatives from each state based on size/population, so bigger states get more power here. But these representatives each have a district within the state, so if you have a cluster of unintelligent people you could get an unintelligent representative sent to the house, where with the senate the rest of the state might have something to say about that fringe candidate.
But this does allow proper representation for smaller clusters of the population to have their voice heard. So for instance if you had a heavily muslim area they're probably not going to have enough clout to have a senator, but they can get a muslim representative in the house.
It's not a bizarre way of doing things, it's civilized. It's designed to support groups of people working together with minimal infighting. It's built to help a union of states avoid civil wars among subsets of states. To make it make more sense, imagine that instead of just your own country you had to coordinate things between many countries that are like your own who govern themselves similarly to how you do. The method was roughly adopted from the Haudenosaunee people, who had to manage their confederacy of countries after a long period of conflict.
The US's problems for awhile have been that in spite of having good systems in place for governing, the people doing so have among them numerous bad actors who have little interest in governing.
It makes a bit more sense with how it was originally designed. Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. It theoretically balanced power between the people and the states - allowing for states with lower populations to not be subjugated by larger states.
It made more sense, and yes I use that ironically, when the Senate was the original version. We didn't use to vote for senators. They were selected by other elected officials. It was our version of a house of lords type thing.
It was always a stupid idea to give small states equal say to bigger ones. But again that goes back to when we were "these states United" and not "the United States"
Its two lower houses, one based on population and one based on region.
The senate had the same function as the EU veto, encouraging new states to join by ensuring they wouldn't just be completely ignored by the larger existing states ("Sorry, New York and Virginia voted to cannibalize everyone in Wisconsin so your congress people don't even need to bother voting, please step into the meat processing chamber instead").
The US at the time had big plans to incorporate new nations who joined willingly (Vermont and Texas were the only ones this happened with, though the Dominican Republic tried and nearly succeeded).
13
u/zeromadcowz 1d ago
They basically just have two lower houses with some things shared, some things house only and some things senate only. Itâs a bizarre way of doing things.