In the early 1980s, when the Libertarian Party was unqualified, Henry Dart was a Libertarian candidate for the New Orleans City Council. He brought a federal suit to have his party label printed on the ballot next to his name. Dart lost (Dart v. Brown).

Louisiana, which registers voters by party, has nonpartisan elections for all state and local offices. The Bayou State does print each candidate’s party affiliation on the ballot, which I agree is a good idea. As I see it, this is mainly done for the voters’ information.

Mississippi, incidentally, elects state and county judges as well as county election commissioners on a nonpartisan basis. Last November, I noticed for the first time that the judicial candidates had no party labels next to their names on the ballot, whereas the candidates for election commissioner did (this is evidently the way it’s always been done… I just never paid attention before).

Mississippi does not register voters by party.

I have nothing against the concept of a unicameral though, but stating the candidates’ party affiliations (or lack of them) is absolutely necessary to hold the senators accountable for their actions.

James Madison, a major author of the Constitution, reasoned that a single, popularly elected legislature might respond too quickly to changes in public opinion and would enact “defective laws which do mischief before they can be mended.” Madison believed that a second legislative body “consisting of fewer and riper members, deliberating separately & independently of the other, may be expected to correct many errors and inaccuracies” of the other.

In theory, the House would represent the common people, while the Senate would represent wealthier property owners and serve as a check against the pressures of public opinion. But those who wanted a more democratic government objected to creating an aristocratic “upper” house. Thomas Jefferson supposedly asked George Washington why a Senate was necessary. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” Washington responded. “To cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” said Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

The source is: http://www.answers.com/topic/bicameralism

When one house passes a bad bill, the other house can stop it. When the two houses pass differing versions of the same bill, it goes to a conference committee. This allows for more discussion and consideration. And, of course, when the executive vetoes a bill, a 2/3 vote of both houses is required to override.

If memory serves, George Washington explained to Thomas Jefferson why two houses were better than one… something analagous to giving the coffee time to cool. Perhaps the brilliant Michael Morrison can provide us with the exact quote.

Tennessee’s system prior to the horrendous Baker v. Carr ruling was the way to go, based in the premise that the next lower level of government had representation in the upper house of that level–like the US Senate used to be before America died in 1913. The natural extension of that lower, with cities having a voice in a County Senate, and the people having the lower houses all along the way, is actually the ideal bicameral system. (It could even be extended in the municipal level to things like neighborhoods, wards and boroughs in large cities while still having at-large officials) It’s not surprising that the increase in unfunded mandates on the lower governments coincide directly with those lower governments losing their voices in the upper houses.