The Disadvantages of a Single-Chamber Assembly
- A single-chamber assembly supports a simple majority in its ruling, especially when making decisions. As a result, the system is said not to be responsive to the views of minority ethnic groups, nor does it protect their rights and interests. Before passing bills into laws, there is not as much careful and deliberate consideration of legislation action as there is in dual-chamber legislatures, since the bills can be passed much more quickly in single chambers.
- In a situation in which a state is ruled through a single-chamber assembly, there is no upper or lower house that demands checks and balances on the other legislative house. As a result, this allows for the passage of flawed, hasty and ill-considered laws.
- While the members sitting in the single-chamber assembly can try to effectively accommodate all of their constituencies' vast and diverse views, their timetables are limited and thus they cannot accommodate all the needs of their people. A single-chamber assembly is most suitable for smaller and homogenous states.
- While in a bicameral system, there is usually the division of power (between the upper house and the lower house), a single-chamber legislature does not have another body that can accept or reject its views. This therefore implies that the decisions made through a single-chamber system are usually final, since there is no upper house or lower house to challenge its rulings.