11/5/98
Political hypocrisy is rampant in Maine.
In the recent political campaigns only a scant few candidates
declared their party affiliations on campaign materials despite
the fact that all but a handful ran as either Republicans or
Democrats. Apparently they didn't want to be identified with
either major political party.
And yet when the winners are sworn to their seats in the
respective houses of the legislature they become immediately and
willingly polarized into either R or D party factions. The bills
are introduced and ensuing legislation is almost totally voted
along party lines.
And that is a bait-and-switch election shell game by politicians.
If politicians continue to be up front dishonest about party
associations then perhaps it's time for a revisit to a solution -
a unicameral or one-house legislature. Ironically, when
unicameral is mentioned it's then that the opponents complain
that it will do away with major party representation.
Nebraska is the only state in the union which has a unicameral
legislature. It has been so since 1934. It elects 49 non-partisan
members called senators. Unicameral would fit independent Maine
most comfortably, but the unicameral bird has never had much
favor with Democrat and Republican hierarchy roosters who keep
their flocks inbred except at pre-election candidate time.
There is no plausible validity to elect representatives to two
separate houses to serve the same purpose except to further
partisan politics. A second chamber (Senate) really can't be
reconciled with the theory of democracy. And more, redundancy
poses a dilemma. Either the second chamber (Senate) resembles the
elected House and represents the people's will, in which case
it's useless, or it opposes that will in which case it's
mischievous.
Just about all municipal and county government is by unicameral
representation such as councils, selectmen, commissioners because
bicameral is too cumbersome and expensive. Only the federal and
state legislative processes are mired down in the political
two-house system.
Maine has flirted with unicameralism in several past
legislatures. In fact a unicameral bill once passed in the Maine
House but was defeated in the Senate. No surprise. The Senate
would have been rolled into a one-house legislature.
In 1995's 117th Legislature Rep. Bill Lemke (D-Westbrook) and
Sen. Peter Mills (R-Somerset) introduced a unicameral bill that
had 25 co-sponsors including seven senators of both parties.
Lemke said, "The people deserve a smaller, more efficient,
more accountable legislature." Mills said, "We have a
horse and buggy legislature in the space age."
The bill was a modified version of Nebraska's non-political
unicameral. The Maine proposal would have required a
constitutional amendment through a constitutional convention and
would have had one house of 101 members elected on a partisan
basis.
To counter opposition that unicameral would be
"unrepresentational," that is, it wouldn't fly under
the nation's one-man, one-vote law, Maine would be reapportioned.
Each House member (151) represents about 8,000 citizens; each
Senator (35) about 35,000 citizens. Under the proposed unicameral
each legislator (101) would have represented about 12,000
constituents.
The opponents, mainly the born-again party loyalists, unionists
and political plank owners, sent their partisan minions into the
hustings with one major sky-is-falling cry - the lobbyists will
take over!
It was shrill hypocrisy. Anybody with even a smattering of
lobbyist knowledge knows that lobbyists go for the senate jugular
to kill or pass their special legislation. The lobbyists have to
roll only a few senators to be effective. In unicameral,
lobbyists would have to take on the whole legislative body all at
once. They could not play their game of racketball bouncing
representatives off against senators.
Considering that Maine candidates are ignoring party affiliations
it's time Maine citizens took them up on it and demanded a
revisited bill for a Maine unicameral legislature.