Checks and balances in a unicameral parliament: The case of the Danish minority referendum

Abstract

Parliamentary students from James Madison onwards have argued that bi‐cameral legislatures provide more efficient checks on parliamentary majorities than unicameral legislatures. Yet there is a growing tendency to abolish second chambers or to establish unicameral parliaments. This note challenges the case for bicameralism through a study of Art. 42 of the Danish Constitution (which allows one‐third of the MPs to demand a referendum on bills enacted by the majority in the Folketinget). It is formally shown that the minority veto efficiently prevents the majority from enacting changes to the status quo without acknowledging the position of the minority party. The findings are contrasted with survey findings and interviews with MPs.