Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Spin off from the Bush Malaysia thread. This will be heavy on US civics and politics so if that's not your bag there's a great thread in the 40k forums about mock-worthy primarchs you can check out instead.
So, Congress has not passed a budget in many, many years. And not passed a balanced budget since the Clinton Administration. And that's just for starters.
So here's some modest proposals in ascending order of impossiblity
#1 Make Senators actually Filibuster - there is NOTHING, NOTHING and NOTHING in the Constitution about filibusters (requiring a 60% majority to end debate and vote on a bill). And it means that even if a vote has 59 supporters, the remaining 41 can make sure it never comes to a vote, even if it would win. In the old days a filibustering senator actually had to stand up and keep speaking for hours or days. After some reforms (which changed it from a 2/3 majority to 60%) these days they can just say, I want to filibuster and they don't have to put on the performance. So let's bring the old ways back, make Senator whoever stand up before CSPAN, God and America and hold the chamber hostage until 60% of the senate votes to make him stop.
#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.
#3 End Gerrymandering districts and 'safe seats' - State governments draw Congressional districts to be safe with comfortable majorities for their party, and to divide the opposition. So the House has an 85% to 95% re-election rate. Congressional districts must follow county lines. If one county has enough people to justify more than one rep, they're elected at-large.
#5 'Blind' elections where Candidates' party affiliations are not listed. So voters have to at least look up names and remember them, and maybe just maybe they'll find out a bit more about the candidates. Most people are well informed about the President, Governor, probably the Senate, but few pay attention to the House or local races. So take away the easy 'brand loyalty' option.
#6 Require a budget - Once the fiscal year ends Congress may not leave the capital building until they pass one (based on how the Cardinals elect a Pope). Or at least stop paying members of Congress and their staff. Yeah, it's petty and vengeful but hey, I don't leave work till my job is done so why should they?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:#1 Make Senators actually Filibuster - there is NOTHING, NOTHING and NOTHING in the Constitution about filibusters (requiring a 60% majority to end debate and vote on a bill). And it means that even if a vote has 59 supporters, the remaining 41 can make sure it never comes to a vote, even if it would win. In the old days a filibustering senator actually had to stand up and keep speaking for hours or days. After some reforms (which changed it from a 2/3 majority to 60%) these days they can just say, I want to filibuster and they don't have to put on the performance. So let's bring the old ways back, make Senator whoever stand up before CSPAN, God and America and hold the chamber hostage until 60% of the senate votes to make him stop.
The new procedure was brought in because when a contentious piece of legislation hit the floor any effort to filibuster meant a complete stop to all government business. As much as we all like to make noise about the political arguments of the day, in between all that government actually has to govern, and continue to pass bills that have general support on both sides of congress. Fillibustering means no legislation can reach the floor, that until the filibusterers (is that a word? it is fun to say) give in or the proposed legislation is withdrawn, nothing else can happen.
Personally I think the better solution would be for each party to go to election with 3 pieces of legislation that, if presented in that exact same form, the opposition cannot filibuster them. This has the nice bonus of having each party actually having to present legislation during election that would clearly show the intent of their party should they win office.
#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.
So what check would you place on a party that secured 51 senators?
#3 End Gerrymandering districts and 'safe seats' - State governments draw Congressional districts to be safe with comfortable majorities for their party, and to divide the opposition. So the House has an 85% to 95% re-election rate. Congressional districts must follow county lines. If one county has enough people to justify more than one rep, they're elected at-large.
Then parties will just start screwing with county lines. And counties won't spring from one representative to two, but spend a long time sitting awkwardly between having enough people for one rep and for two.
The only long term workable solution is to have a national electoral commission, that is given the directive to set district boundaries and is left to be independant. This would be a significant challenge for the US, because there simply isn't much of a culture of independant government bodies, everything is seen to be at the whim of whoever got more votes in the last election. Ultimately, the electoral boundaries are part of a greater issue of culture change.
#4 Term limits.
I don't know. I've always figured if people aren't happy with someone, they'll vote them out. If they're happy enough with them to give them another term, why tell them they can't vote for them?
#5 'Blind' elections where Candidates' party affiliations are not listed. So voters have to at least look up names and remember them, and maybe just maybe they'll find out a bit more about the candidates. Most people are well informed about the President, Governor, probably the Senate, but few pay attention to the House or local races. So take away the easy 'brand loyalty' option.
I really like this idea. If you don't know enough about the candidates that you have to be told which one is the Green candidate, maybe you shouldn't be voting in that particular race?
#6 Require a budget - Once the fiscal year ends Congress may not leave the capital building until they pass one (based on how the Cardinals elect a Pope). Or at least stop paying members of Congress and their staff. Yeah, it's petty and vengeful but hey, I don't leave work till my job is done so why should they?
Locking something like that in just opens up the door to passing a bit of nonsense that is technically a budget. A single piece of paper with 'we think we'll generate 3 trillion dollars and spend 2.5 trillion dollars' would meet your requirements, and be made even sillier by the fact that the above figures don't have to be made even slightly plausible.
As a guy who works with budgets every day, it always makes me laugh when people talk about the need to pass a balanced budget. Anyone can pass a balanced budget, all you have to do is write down numbers on a piece of paper. Building a balanced budget that you have a chance in hell of actually delivering... that's the real challenge.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.
Its bad enough that certain states are so dominating in the electoral college with the winner take all state of the college, I'd rather we didn't remove the safety that keeps high populated states from dominating the others in federal affairs. There's enough of that already.
I would outlaw corporate lobbying, super PACs and the like. Corporations can't donate. Only actually citizens. Limit donations to a maximum of $1000. Basically work toward eliminating wealth as the primary factor for what makes an elected official. Give every candidate 30 minutes (or whatever) of airtime on a public TV station (even if this requires setting up a completely government owned station). It's not perfect and I'm sure there would be all sorts of complications, but that's where I'd start.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/18 02:44:25
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.
...proportional representation is a feature of the House; not the Senate.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
sebster wrote:As much as we all like to make noise about the political arguments of the day, in between all that government actually has to govern, and continue to pass bills that have general support on both sides of congress.
You mean that their staff has to govern. All the Senator needs to do is show up, and not be an idiot.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote:As much as we all like to make noise about the political arguments of the day, in between all that government actually has to govern, and continue to pass bills that have general support on both sides of congress.
You mean that their staff has to govern. All the Senator needs to do is show up, and not be an idiot.
A significant quantity of them can't even manage to do that second part.
I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
#1 Sounds good. Democrats actually filibustered Civil RIghts legislation in the 60's. Since then it has been a "gentleman's agreement". Psht.
#2 Need the filibuster. The house was designed for majority rule, senate to slow things down. For good or bad.
#3 Right on.
#4 God yes please.
#5 Party affiliation is a double edged sword, but necessary.
#6 U.S. Constitution requires a budget. Its already law. Provision saying it can be passed with a simple majority, no filibuster is allowed for a budget. House Republicans have submitted and passed 2. Senate Democrats refuse to vote on it. President Obama has submitted 3. I believe the first passed on a party line vote. His last 2 have not received any votes from any party. Unanimous rejection. And they say bipartisanship is dead! Your budget complaint is entirely the Senate Democrats fault.
Why do I see so many non Americans writing about how we should handle out business? Not a complaint or insult, just curious.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
I'm on board with stopping gerrymandering and blind elections, the rest of it I am much more ambivalent about. I don't think that giving high population states even more say is a good idea, for one. Pie in the sky dreaming, i'd replace filibustering with
40kFSU wrote: Why do I see so many non Americans writing about how we should handle out business? Not a complaint or insult, just curious.
Why do Americans care about what people in Afghanistan are doing?
We don't we just don't want them screaming allah akhbar and blowing up the Empire State Building.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote:I'm on board with stopping gerrymandering and blind elections, the rest of it I am much more ambivalent about. I don't think that giving high population states even more say is a good idea, for one. Pie in the sky dreaming, i'd replace filibustering with
defend your position.
Bromsy wins the thread. Absent that yes we need to bring back Mr. Smith style stand up fillibustering. Having seen the s that are current Senate though, the only thing they can stand up for is the next fundraiser.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/05/18 11:18:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kilkrazy wrote:We also comment on affairs in Japan, Greece and France, etc. You probably just don't notice it so much.
I must have missed the threads where we discussed Japanese, Greek, or French politics.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.
The argument that the US government is democratic is wrong. We are not a democracy. Yes, North Dakota should have as many votes as California.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:#5 'Blind' elections where Candidates' party affiliations are not listed.
Kilkrazy wrote:We also comment on affairs in Japan, Greece and France, etc. You probably just don't notice it so much.
I must have missed the threads where we discussed Japanese, Greek, or French politics.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/449513.page This one came to mind but I don't suppose it is actually Greek Politics. I also missed a thread that may have been posted about France electing a Socialist, but we will likely discuss that at length more than once.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
You found one! I see a discussion on Greek debt, not one on how and why Greece should reorganize its government. And I don't see other threads whose premise is the governmental system is fundamentally broken. But like I said, just asking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/18 13:50:58
Kid_Kyoto wrote:#1 Make Senators actually Filibuster - there is NOTHING, NOTHING and NOTHING in the Constitution about filibusters (requiring a 60% majority to end debate and vote on a bill). And it means that even if a vote has 59 supporters, the remaining 41 can make sure it never comes to a vote, even if it would win. In the old days a filibustering senator actually had to stand up and keep speaking for hours or days. After some reforms (which changed it from a 2/3 majority to 60%) these days they can just say, I want to filibuster and they don't have to put on the performance. So let's bring the old ways back, make Senator whoever stand up before CSPAN, God and America and hold the chamber hostage until 60% of the senate votes to make him stop.
The new procedure was brought in because when a contentious piece of legislation hit the floor any effort to filibuster meant a complete stop to all government business. As much as we all like to make noise about the political arguments of the day, in between all that government actually has to govern, and continue to pass bills that have general support on both sides of congress. Fillibustering means no legislation can reach the floor, that until the filibusterers (is that a word? it is fun to say) give in or the proposed legislation is withdrawn, nothing else can happen.
Personally I think the better solution would be for each party to go to election with 3 pieces of legislation that, if presented in that exact same form, the opposition cannot filibuster them. This has the nice bonus of having each party actually having to present legislation during election that would clearly show the intent of their party should they win office.
Lot's of good stuff in this thread.
I see no reason why a Filibuster should NOT shut down other Senate Business. That way, the Filibusterers (Yes, that is fun to say!) would actually need to carefully consider if they wanted to go all the way to the Nuclear option. It should only be used in extreme cases, and carry a political price akin to causing a Government Shutdown.
The Senate all ready has a number of ways to kill any legislation before it gets to the floor. Plus, there are other governmental Checks and Balances in place. The Filibuster should be a "last Resort" and only in an extreme emergency option, not an everyday matter of procedure.
That way, we don;t need to end the Filibuster, but simply make it something that is notable to do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/18 14:15:46
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
We are a representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we want them to. A democracy is simple majority, which is mob rule. The genius of our founding prevents this.
Why do I see so many non Americans writing about how we should handle out business? Not a complaint or insult, just curious.
Well I live in Trinidad but I'm a yank so there's that.
But also as the world's largest economy, a country that absolutely dominates international news, there's just a lot of interest in how the US does stuff.
Esp since we tend to be pretty eager to say what a model we are for the rest of the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:We are a representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we want them to. A democracy is simple majority, which is mob rule. The genius of our founding prevents this.
Majoritarianism is mob rule - 99 Romans vote to throw 1 Christian to the lions
Democracy is majority rule with protection for the rights of the minority
Republic is indirect majority rule wtih increased protection for the will of the minority.
We're a republic.
But I believe the ability of one senator to prevent a vote, and 40 senators to kill a bill is going too far. Neither power is in the Constitution, both have been changed over time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/18 16:56:57
I see your point on the 1 senator thing, and I will be screaming about the filibuster when Republicans control the senate and the Dems filibuster everything. I think if they actually had to stand up and speak like the old days there would be far, far fewer of them. Probably help with your term limits idea. 80 years olds cant pull a marathon on the floor.
Why do I see so many non Americans writing about how we should handle out business? Not a complaint or insult, just curious.
Well I live in Trinidad but I'm a yank so there's that.
But also as the world's largest economy, a country that absolutely dominates international news, there's just a lot of interest in how the US does stuff.
Esp since we tend to be pretty eager to say what a model we are for the rest of the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40kFSU wrote:We are a representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we want them to. A democracy is simple majority, which is mob rule. The genius of our founding prevents this.
Majoritarianism is mob rule - 99 Romans vote to throw 1 Christian to the lions
Democracy is majority rule with protection for the rights of the minority
Republic is indirect majority rule wtih increased protection for the will of the minority.
We're a republic.
But I believe the ability of one senator to prevent a vote, and 40 senators to kill a bill is going too far. Neither power is in the Constitution, both have been changed over time.
How did you get your country of origin flag to change? Proxy?
Benjamin Franklin wrote:Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
40kFSU wrote:We are a representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we want them to.
No, they're supposed to vote how they want to, which may or may not be related to what we want.
40kFSU wrote:
A democracy is simple majority, which is mob rule. The genius of our founding prevents this.
Rule by the majority is indeed a type of democracy, but since no government that holds democracy as a value has ever been based entirely on majority rule it seems silly to delimit the set "Democracies" according to that criteria.
Its sort of like saying that communism has never been practiced because no one has ever gotten past the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The argument that the US government is democratic is wrong. We are not a democracy. Yes, North Dakota should have as many votes as California.
There are varying degrees of democracy.
I honestly think one of the best things to fix Congress is to get rid of the direct election of Senators. With both houses of Congress being subject to the fickle (and idiotic) whims of the people, we've created a system where populism is overly dominant. If senators were appointed again, there'd be a legislative stop gap that was somewhat insulated from the mob and ideally spent more time doing its actual job and less time campaigning for reelection.
I also think it would help if the electoral college were abolished and replaced with popular vote, or at least amended to split electoral votes by percentage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/18 17:56:58
I want to see old style filibustering it takes a pair of cojones. lets see which senators really have em.
@dogma you are only slightly off they are supposed to vote based on what is in the best interests of their constiuents.
It rarely happens but its supposed to.
8000 Dark Angels (No primaris)
10000 Lizardmen (Fantasy I miss you)
3000 High Elves 4000 Kel'shan Ta'u "He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which." -Douglas Adams
captain collius wrote:
@dogma you are only slightly off they are supposed to vote based on what is in the best interests of their constiuents.
It rarely happens but its supposed to.
No law requires that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:
I honestly think one of the best things to fix Congress is to get rid of the direct election of Senators. With both houses of Congress being subject to the fickle (and idiotic) whims of the people, we've created a system where populism is overly dominant. If senators were appointed again, there'd be a legislative stop gap that was somewhat insulated from the mob and ideally spent more time doing its actual job and less time campaigning for reelection.
Agreed.
It would also increase the political power of state legislatures, though that may not be a good thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/18 18:38:49
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
s that are current Senate though, the only thing they can stand up for is the next fundraiser.
(No primaris)
(Fantasy I miss you)
