bicameral system, also called bicameralism, a system of government in which the legislaturecomprises two houses. The modern bicameral system dates back to the beginnings of constitutional government in 17th-century England and to the later 18th century on the continent of Europe and in the United States
History and development
The English Parliament became bicameral in recognition of the distinction between the nobility and clergy and the common people. When the British colonies were established in America, the colonial assemblies were likewise bicameral because there were two interests to be represented: the mother country, by the governor in council, and the colonists, by their chosen deputies. After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, bicameral systems were established in all the states but Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. In those three states, single-chamber legislatures were set up, but they were replaced by bicameral legislatures in 1789, 1790, and 1830, respectively. All the new states subsequently admitted into the union entered with two-house legislatures.
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.
With the extension of constitutional government throughout the world, most countries set up bicameral legislatures on the English or U.S. models, with large first chambers chosen by popular vote and smaller second chambers whose members were either elected or appointed (or, in some cases, determined by inheritance) and often represented political subdivisions, such as the Swiss cantons. The bicameral plan is usually found in federal governments, such as those of the United States, Australia, Brazil, and Canada, and in quasi-federal governments, such as those of Germany and India.
Bicameral systems versus unicameral systems
Theoretically, this dualism in the bicameral system is justified as an application of the principle of checks and balances. A bicameral system is desirable, it has been argued, to avoid hasty and harsh legislation, limit democracy, and secure deliberation. Although the bicameral system remained prevalent in the 20th century, there were reactions against it. Unicameral councils or commissions came to predominate in American cities, which had often been organized along bicameral patterns in the 19th century. Widespread dissatisfaction with American state legislatures led to numerous proposals for a single-chamber system during the second decade of the 20th century, but the adoption in 1934 of a unicameral legislature by Nebraska (effective from 1937) marked the only departure from the bicameral system among the U.S. states.
Constitutional trends after World War II reflected a growing preference for the unicameral system in nonfederal states of the world. Unicameral national legislative bodies were set up in many European countries and several Latin American ones.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now
In Britain, where the House of Lords had been weakened, and in France, where the Council of the Republic (renamed the Senate in 1958 on the foundation of the Fifth Republic) was practically impotent, the governments operated, in effect, on the unicameral principle. A unitary system of government does not imply a unicameral legislature. Modern constitutional states often retain two chambers even though bicameralism has declined.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaThis article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Zeidan.
Introduction
HomePolitics, Law & GovernmentLaw, Crime & Punishmentparliamentary procedure
Alternate titles: rules of order By The Editors of Encyclopaedia BritannicaArticle History
Key People:Thomas B. ReedSamuel J. RandallHenry Martyn RobertRelated Topics:quorumvote of confidencefilibustercloturepocket veto
Summary
parliamentary procedure, also called rules of order, the generally accepted rules, precedents, and practices commonly employed in the governance of deliberative assemblies. Such rules are intended to maintain decorum, to ascertain the will of the majority, to preserve the rights of the minority, and to facilitate the orderly transaction of the business of an assembly.
Origins and development
Rules of order originated in the early British Parliaments. In the 1560s Sir Thomas Smith wrote an early formal statement of procedures in the House of Commons, which was published in 1583. Lex Parliamentaria (1689; “Parliamentary Law”) was a pocket manual for members of Parliament and included many precedents that are now familiar. Drawing from the Journal of the House of Commons, it included points such as the following:
1. One subject should be discussed at a time (adopted 1581).
2. The chair must always call for the negative vote (1604).
3. Personal attacks and indecorous behaviour are to be avoided in debate (1604): “He that digresseth from the Matter to fall upon the Person ought to be suppressed by the Speaker.…No reviling or nipping words must be used.”
4. Debate must be limited to the merits of the question (1610): “A member speaking, and his speech, seeming impertinent, and there being much hissing and spitting, it was conceived for a Rule, that Mr. Speaker may stay impertinent speeches.”
Depending heavily on procedures developed in the British Parliament, colonists in America governed under written charters and grants, an experience that influenced the framing of state constitutions and the Constitution of the United States (1787). The first work to interpret and define parliamentary principles for the new American government was A Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801), written by Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States.
The modern system of general parliamentary law and practice is, in many respects, at wide variance with the current systems of procedure of both the British Parliament and the U.S. Congress. Rules designed for legislatures that use a bicameral system with paid memberships, that meet in continuous session, that require a majority for a quorum, and that delegate their duties largely to committees address special legislative requirements. They are, as a whole, unsuited to the needs of an ordinary assembly.
An early attempt in the United States to serve “assemblies of every description…especially…those not legislative in their character” was the Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1845), by Luther S. Cushing (1803–56), a jurist and clerk of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Robert’s Rules of Order (1876), codified by U.S. Army officer General Henry M. Robert (1837–1923), which has gone through various editions and reprintings and continues to be published in periodic editions, has had a lasting impact on the development of parliamentary procedure.
Rules of parliamentary procedure
According to Robert’s Rules, a “deliberative assembly,” to which parliamentary law is ordinarily applied, has the following characteristics: it is an independent or autonomous group convened to determine actions of the group in free discussion; its size is sufficiently large that formal proceedings are necessary; its members are free to act, and each member’s vote has equal weight; failure to agree “does not constitute withdrawal from the body”; and members who are present act for the entire membership “subject only to such limitations as may be established by the body’s governing rules.”
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now
The will of such a deliberative assembly is expressed by its action on proposals submitted for consideration in the form of motions or resolutions offered by members. In order to make a motion, a member ordinarily must rise and address the chair and secure recognition. If the motion is considered in order and is seconded by another member, it is “stated” by the presiding officer and then is subject to the action of the assembly.
Motions may be classified as main motions, which introduce a proposition, or as secondary motions, which are designed to affect the main motion or its consideration. A main motion is in order only when there is no other business before an assembly. It yields in precedence to all other questions.
Secondary motions may be subdivided into (1) subsidiary, (2) incidental, and (3) privileged. Subsidiary motions are applicable to other motions for the purpose of modifying the main question or affecting its consideration and disposition. The subsidiary motion to lay on the table is, in American usage, a motion to suspend consideration of the question until such time as the assembly may determine to take it from the table for further consideration. The motion is not debatable and may not be amended, postponed, committed, divided, or reconsidered. The purpose of the motion for the previous question is to close debate peremptorily and bring the assembly to an immediate vote on the pending question. It precludes both debate and amendment and requires a two-thirds vote for passage under general parliamentary procedure. The motions to commit, recommit, and refer are practically equivalent.
Motions to amend, which call for changes in the text or terms of the proposition, require a second and must be reduced to writing if requested by the chair. There is no limit to the number of amendments that may be proposed, and new amendments may be offered as rapidly as the pending amendment is disposed of. Motions to amend generally are not entertained unless germane or relevant to the main question.
Incidental motions include questions arising incidentally in the consideration of other questions and decided before disposition of the one to which they are incident. They comprise motions to suspend the rules, withdraw motions, read papers, raise the question of consideration, raise questions of order and appeal, reconsider, take up out of order, determine the method of procedure, divide pending questions, and raise questions relating to nominations. Points of order may be made while another has the floor and when the question concerns the use of unparliamentary language. The question must be raised at the time the proceeding giving rise to the objection occurs.
Privileged motions relate to matters of such urgent importance that they temporarily supersede pending business. They take precedence over all other motions and may be offered while other questions are pending. In this class of motions are the motions to fix the time at which to adjourn, to adjourn, to take a recess, and to raise questions of privilege, all of which are undebatable.
Motions to take from the table, to discharge a committee, to accept the report of a committee, to rescind, to repeal, to annul, to expunge, and to permit a member to resume the floor after having been called to order for words spoken in debate are unclassified.
To debate a question, a member must be recognized by the presiding officer. The presiding officer first recognizes the mover of a proposition or the member of a committee presenting a report and endeavours to alternate recognitions between those favouring and those opposing a question. Under general parliamentary procedure, a member securing the floor may speak without limit, though it is customary to adopt a rule limiting debate to a specified number of minutes. In debate a member must confine remarks to the question under consideration, must avoid personalities, and must not arraign motives. A presiding officer who is a member of the assembly has the right to debate and to participate in the proceedings but generally calls another to the chair before taking the floor and does not resume it again until the pending question has been decided.
Voting may be by ballot, by division (i.e., a rising, or standing, vote), by viva voce (a voice vote), by show of hands, by tellers who may take the count in various ways, and by yeas and nays (the clerk calling the roll and recording each vote). If there is doubt as to the result of a voice vote, any member may request that a formal vote be taken. Only members in attendance may vote, unless provision has been made for proxy votes. A tie vote defeats an affirmative motion. The presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, may vote to break a tie or to make one.
The committee of the whole consists of the entire assembly acting as a general committee. It affords greater freedom of consideration, but in bodies other than legislative assemblies it is rarely used.