Filibuster

[JoeMorgue]

Which then allows the party with the slimmest of a majority to basically do whatever it wants to do.

I think there is some value in codifying into our law making process that some decisions are simply "bigger" and should require more people to be behind them a simple 50%.

As it stands now once a party has a Supermajority the other party might as well not show up. I pale to think what the party in power could do it all it took was a simple majority.

Imagine it all it took was a simple majority to push though a Constitutional Amendment? *Shudders*

 

[BravesFan]

@Sezme


Hmm, i would disagree with that. The voters have shown a consistent ability to "vote the bums out" when there have been stagnant ,ineffective congresses. (Republican Revolution under Clinton, the opposite result under Bush Jr's 2nd term...etc)

I think that the voters have done a fairly good job at policing congress. it's never going to be an efficient system, any form of govt that involves large groups of people agreeing on things never will be, but I am of the opinion that it should be more encompassing to pass new laws, should require more cooperation, and though initially there would be more partisan nonsense, I think a 60% majority would force the two sides to work together a bit more.

But perhaps I am being a bit too idealistic?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you are forgetting the voter. The number one goal of all politicians is to get re-elected. If they are inactive, eventually the voter will replace them with someone willing to be more pro-active.

Your proposal goes against giving voters more authority. Again, you are proposing a de facto filibuster of every bill in the Senate. This favors the minority, not the majority.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hmm, i would disagree with that. The voters have shown a consistent ability to "vote the bums out" when there have been stagnant ,ineffective congresses.

Under the current rules, that is. Not under your proposal.

Even so, I think it's arguable whether or not they have been able to do that in a timely manner.

The opposite has also happened. We had an influx of Tea Party candidates whose primary approach to legislation was "no compromise".

How exactly would your proposal make it more likely that we'd have more Congresses willing to work together?

 

[BravesFan]

Under the current rules, that is. Not under your proposal.

Even so, I think it's arguable whether or not they have been able to do that in a timely manner.

The opposite has also happened. We had an influx of Tea Party candidates whose primary approach to legislation was "no compromise".

How exactly would your proposal make it more likely that we'd have more Congresses willing to work together?

because the stagnation in congress will lead to a high turnover until both sides learn to compromise. i can't see the public willing to sit around and watch constant partisan inactivity for long. This is a long term, not a short term plan btw.


What I would really love,would be a 4 or 5 party system where nobody had the majority. Then we could goto a simple majority for passage of bills, because by nature there would be mucho compromise afoot.

 

[SezMe]

As it stands now once a party has a Supermajority the other party might as well not show up. I pale to think what the party in power could do it all it took was a simple majority.

Isn't that exactly the status in the House?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No 290 of the 435 seats is a supermajority in the house. The GOP has 242.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

because the stagnation in congress will lead to a high turnover until both sides learn to compromise.

Why would that happen? And how would making every bill in the Senate face an automatic filibuster be a solution?

In fact, I think it would exacerbate the gridlock problem.

ETA: And I think you ignore the fact that many people are motivated to favor gridlock in some situations.

 

[BravesFan]

Why would that happen? And how would making every bill in the Senate face an automatic filibuster be a solution?

In fact, I think it would exacerbate the gridlock problem.

ETA: And I think you ignore the fact that many people are motivated to favor gridlock in some situations.

i like gridlock sometimes , I think any one party in total power is not a good thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No 290 of the 435 seats is a supermajority in the house. The GOP has 242.

I think SezMe was pointing out that the House has no filibuster, and bills pass by simple majority in the House.

I've been assuming that LogicFail's proposal is only for the Senate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

i like gridlock sometimes , I think any one party in total power is not a good thing.

I completely agree, but there's a fine line between gridlock and just getting !@#$-all accomplished.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

i like gridlock sometimes , I think any one party in total power is not a good thing.

OK, so would increasing gridlock by your proposed rule change encourage you to vote for different candidates?

I thought you were arguing the opposite: that increasing gridlock by your rule change would cause voters to vote out their Senators and result (magically?) in a Senate more willing to work together and result in the long term in less gridlock.

I still don't see how or why that would work.

 

[BravesFan]

OK, so would increasing gridlock by your proposed rule change encourage you to vote for different candidates?

I thought you were arguing the opposite: that increasing gridlock by your rule change would cause voters to vote out their Senators and result (magically?) in a Senate more willing to work together and result in the long term in less gridlock.

I still don't see how or why that would work.

I don't like the simple majority to pass laws as i think that if a law cannot pass by a 60% than it isn't good enough to merit passing.

i think you underrate the voters ability to see through the malarky of Congress.

If , over time, nothing gets done, they will vote in new people, if they get nothing done they will continue until either:

A) politicians start to compromise to keep their jobs
or

B) political partisanship shifts to accommodate this new 60% margin



Like I said, it would take 20 years maybe to work, and I bet that most things important enough to be needed would still get passed (as their political lives depend on it) but something needs to break the pattern of partisanship in Washington, the way we are going isn't working to well. (personally I would love a few more parties to strip everyone from a majority) but I doubt that happens anytime soon.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't like the simple majority to pass laws as i think that if a law cannot pass by a 60% than it isn't good enough to merit passing.

Why? Are you familiar with the bandwagon fallacy?

i think you underrate the voters ability to see through the malarky of Congress.

Actually I think you do. See below:

If , over time, nothing gets done, they will vote in new people,

If nothing gets done because the Senate adopted your proposed rule (effectively automatically subjecting every bill to a filibuster), why wouldn't the voters clamor for the Senate to do away with your rule?

Even when approval of Congress drops, voters still tend to make an exception for the case of their Congress person.

Still, at best you're arguing that the voters will try to undo the damage done by adopting your rule change. (This reasoning reminds me of a that of a chiropractor I know who insists that in the heat of summer, you can cool your body down by drinking hot coffee--because the hot coffee causes you to sweat, which cools you down!)

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Like I said, it would take 20 years maybe to work, and I bet that most things important enough to be needed would still get passed (as their political lives depend on it) but something needs to break the pattern of partisanship in Washington, the way we are going isn't working to well. (personally I would love a few more parties to strip everyone from a majority) but I doubt that happens anytime soon.

I think this solution focuses on the wrong problems. It seems to me that Congress isn't getting to deal with problems when it is practical and have to wait for CRISIS time. Look at debt, Social Security, Medicare, illegal immigration, and so on. We just keep passing the buck and the problems keep growing larger. I agree that I would like more consensual politics, but I don't think gridlock and omnifilibusters lead that way.

 

[BravesFan]

Why does it seem like everybody is attacking me today.........

fine you are right, everything I say is wrong and stupid....

 

[SezMe]

It's the politics subforum of a skeptical board. You could post you like motherhood and apple pie and someone will ring your chimes about it. Post what you like, take what makes sense and laugh at the rest.

 

[SezMe]

I think SezMe was pointing out that the House has no filibuster, and bills pass by simple majority in the House.

Yes. JoeBentley, you said you'd be poopless if bills passed by a simple majority. But that is exactly how half of our congress has worked from day one.

 

[SezMe]

Like I said, it would take 20 years maybe to work, ....

The problem with your idea is that there are always new congresscritters being elected. So your 20 years is a rolling 20 years that never comes to an end point.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why does it seem like everybody is attacking me today.........

No one has attacked you. We're attacking (or at least questioning) what you've said. I encourage you to try to defend your views, or reconsider them.

I'd love for you to change your opinion based on my rational logical arguments. I would hate for you to give in because you think you're being bullied.

No one wants to bully you into submission!

On a tangent, did you just change your username? I was about to apologize for getting two different posters confused. . . .