Kingman letters: Two houses not better than one

Since I am not an authority on political matters, I would like to read other people's opinion on a question that came up. It is timely because of the present political debates about how big is too big, concerning our federal and state governments.

The following is an excerpt from our Arizona state Constitution:

"Section 1. (1) The Senate shall be composed of one member elected from each of the thirty legislative districts established pursuant to this section.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of two members elected from each of the thirty legislative districts established pursuant to this section."

Read this excerpt a couple of times and ask yourself,

1) What is the difference between a Senate member and the two House representatives?

2) Legislatively, aren't they the same?

3) If we needed three legislators from each district, why wasn't it written that way in the first place?

4) Wouldn't we save a lot of money on the state budget by doing away with the senator positions?

5) Wouldn't the legislative activities move along more efficiently if a bill only had to pass the House?

Okay, now let's hear why we should keep the Senate positions in a state government! And please don't tell me that it's because our state Constitution is written that way! That can be changed.

David Gaither

Kingman