Content deleted Content added
RadleyMadish (talk | contribs) |
Removed irrelevant/misleading material and bias/opinion, it is not relevant or sensible to comprise the near entirety of the section on the potential benefits of Multicameralsim with the potential benefits of unicameralism, which can be found and read on the unicameralism page. Corrected to be about potential benefits of multicameralism. |
||
Line 21:
== Benefits ==
Proponents of multicameral legislatures hold that multiple legislative chambers offer the opportunity to re-debate and correct errors in either chamber in parallel, and in some cases to introduce legislation in either chamber.{{Citation needed|date=April 2021}} Advocates of multicameralism also contend that multiple legislative chambers are (best) able to represent the various important sectors of society (such as culturally or linguistically distinct, geographically different or similarly interested populations that comprise a country - i.e. the various [[List of states and territories of the United States|states]] of the [[United States|United States of America]] or [[Provinces and territories of Canada|provinces]] of [[Canada]], each with their own geographical borders, subcultures, interests and even languages i.e. English, French, Spanish), which may not be able to be adequately represented by a singular legislative body. Supporters of multicameralsim also posit that a critical weakness of a unicameral system can be a potential lack of [[Tyranny of the majority|lack of restraint]] on the [[majority]] ([[mob rule]]) and incompatible with the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government, particularly noticeable in [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary systems]] where the leaders of the parliamentary majority also dominate the [[Executive (government)|executive]].
==See also==
| |||