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.

Because COMMUNISM (ooh, scary). Also the US (or some people at the very least) don't like to admit "defeat".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because COMMUNISM (ooh, scary). Also the US (or some people at the very least) don't like to admit "defeat".

 whembly wrote:
I missed that and I admitted that I was speculating...

Sure, but I think it should be telling when your worldview leads you to believe something, such as oil and gas giving lots of money to Democrats, and reality shows something very different, that 91% of oil and gas money goes to Republicans.

It should lead you to perhaps rethink some of your assumptions. That perhaps the Democrats aren’t just cynically pushing for less coal because that’s what lobbyists are paying them for, that perhaps they’re taking that path because coal really is an environmental threat.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I think when your worldview leads you to consider something likely, and reality turns out to be 100% the opposite, it should cause some rethink of assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The Republicans are basically making a big gamble that two coin tosses are both going to go their way this year: a Republican wins the White House, and the Republicans retain control of the Senate. Right now, the Republicans have the power to get someone into SCOTUS that they can at least tolerate (a moderate), but not someone they actually want (a conservative). They've sworn up and down that the next president should decide, and they'll just have to suck it up if the next president is a Democrat (which is highly likely, Trump is just a disaster, and Cruz is such an avatar of disunity that he wouldn't even be able to get his fellow Senators to convict his own murderer).

Yeah, and while I’ve always been critical of the cynicism the Republicans took to this issue, and their decision to risk precedent over the issue, as a political gamble there was a case for it. They had a good shot at the Whitehouse, and should have been confident of holding the senate. And by simply threatening the action, they forced Obama to potentially temper his selection, and pick someone closer to the centre of US politics.

In terms of pure political strategy, it had merit. But because this is the modern Republican party we’re talking about, they had to go as hard as they could as early as they could. So their early pronouncements that they’d refuse to consider anyone Obama selected have backed them in to a corner. Now as their odds in the general election are drifting, it’s hard for them back off their hardline position, and accept a centrist now, instead of the more leftwing candidate Clinton might nominate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Nothing is stopping them, unless the President nominate someone more agreeable.

I know you don't like the outcome of this, but both sides *are* doing their duties.

McConnell said that they were refusing to hold any hearings, before a Obama possible shortlist of candidates had even been speculated about. We've done this countless times, and you still refuse to see the difference between 'we don't like that particular nominee, go get another' and 'we refuse to consider anyone you nominate, and will continue to refuse until you aren't president anymore'.

And if the rumour is true, that Republicans have sent back channel messages that they'll accept Garland in the lameduck period if a Democrat wins, that just shows this is nothing to do with Garland or anyone Obama would have nominated. It was just a calculated political gamble that they could hold out until a Republican won the presidency and could nominate a conservative.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
In 40k lingo, both sides are RAW in their views.

RAW makes a mess of a simple boardgame. Applying that kind of culture to national politics… produces the shambolic state of congress we see today. Please stop making excuses for your team, they are acting in bad faith.

So, because the Senate is choosing to use it's Advise portion in this manner, maybe Obama need to go back to the drawing board and pick someone else.

Why are you pretending Obama’s nominee matters? From the very start of this thing McConnell said they were considering no-one that Obama picked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
The senate is performing a function. Their 'advise' function. The Constitution does NOT lay out the procedure, the Senate does. And they seem to have decided in this case their advise function consists of saying 'Sorry POTUS, ain't gonna happen.' And they are within their job description to do so.

You don't have to like, but to declare them unconstitutional and not doing their job is silly, there is no legal precedent to make that call on, and there is precedent for their actions (or lack there of).

You don’t have to call it unconstitutional to understand it is a very dangerous precedent. Once we accept that any party with 51 seats in the senate can simply refuse any possible SC nomination until they win the presidency, why only wait one year? If Trump wins in 2016 but the GOP loses the senate, why wouldn’t Democrats claim they’re within their constitutional bounds to deny any nomination for four years?

The recklessness that Republicans are applying to this process, and willingness with which the party faithful is happy to go along, rationalising whatever they have to in order to keep cheering for their team, well it’s a bit scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
What's changed isn't that the senate is refusing to consider a judicial nominee, that's not uncommon. What's changed is the high profile nature, as it's SCOTUS seat, and the fairly brazen nature of it. Prior refusals to consider have been quiet, while the GOP clearly hopes to make hay from their refusal.

It seems to me the brazen nature is a massive change. Refusing a nomination, even doing so in a highly public Borking in order to score votes with your supporter groups, that's quite different to simply refusing any nomination. At least Republicans would have to go and find things about the nominated person to complain about. There'd be a game as they'd have to sell their complaints to the American people, or face a backlash as they refuse a candidate who seems qualified and reasonable.

But instead Republicans declared they won't review any nomination, before anyone was even rumoured to be shortlisted. That's a whole new thing, and one that opens up a dangerous precedent.

People have rightly pointed out that there's nothing stopping Democrats from doing the same thing for four years if they end up at some point holding the senate but not the presidency. But there's one thing that's stop them - if the electorate punished the Republicans for this. If their polling numbers tanked real bad because footsoldiers like whembly and CaptJake and a few million others said that accepted process was more important than team red, then that'd send a warning to every politician to never try these kinds of shenanigans.

Not happening though. Partisanship is more important that governance.

Couldn't anyone who lives in a state with a 'red' Senator, irrespective of their own political alignments write a letter to their senator and say.

"I am a voter and I strongly disagree with your course of action in regard of the Supreme Court nominations and I believe... etc."

And presumably, if that person then gets their friends who can also write articulately to do the same...

Cause, you know, that's how this sort of thing is supposed to work, right?

 Compel wrote:
Couldn't anyone who lives in a state with a 'red' Senator, irrespective of their own political alignments write a letter to their senator and say.

"I am a voter and I strongly disagree with your course of action in regard of the Supreme Court nominations and I believe... etc."

And presumably, if that person then gets their friends who can also write articulately to do the same...

Cause, you know, that's how this sort of thing is supposed to work, right?

Yes, folks can write or call. And many are. Of course, there are many saying 'Stick to what you promised us you would do this time, or find a new job next election'.

Except it doesn't work that way. As Romney famously said, it wasn't his job to care about 47% of the country. Politicians barely care about the people who voted for them; they don't care at all about the people who didn't vote for them. There was a time when an elected official actually cared about the concerns of his district, but now it's party first, everything else dead last.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except it doesn't work that way. As Romney famously said, it wasn't his job to care about 47% of the country. Politicians barely care about the people who voted for them; they don't care at all about the people who didn't vote for them. There was a time when an elected official actually cared about the concerns of his district, but now it's party first, everything else dead last.

The Tea Party forced a lot of ugly primaries. The current R primary is sending the Party a pretty loud message. Maybe they stick their fingers in their ears and lalalalala. Maybe the message gets even louder next time.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except it doesn't work that way. As Romney famously said, it wasn't his job to care about 47% of the country. Politicians barely care about the people who voted for them; they don't care at all about the people who didn't vote for them. There was a time when an elected official actually cared about the concerns of his district, but now it's party first, everything else dead last.

I've been hearing the same thing. I work in the Disability adjudication office for SSA, and we've actually seen a decrease in Congressional inquiries even as our backlog increases. Basically, members of congress aren't as involved in constituent engagement.

 Polonius wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except it doesn't work that way. As Romney famously said, it wasn't his job to care about 47% of the country. Politicians barely care about the people who voted for them; they don't care at all about the people who didn't vote for them. There was a time when an elected official actually cared about the concerns of his district, but now it's party first, everything else dead last.

I've been hearing the same thing. I work in the Disability adjudication office for SSA, and we've actually seen a decrease in Congressional inquiries even as our backlog increases. Basically, members of congress aren't as involved in constituent engagement.

Let's segue into a different direction...

Do ya'll think we need to expand the congressional critter counts? At least in the House to be more responsive?

The last time the House was increased was in 1912 to the current 435.

The 1910 US census was approx 92 million. So that works out to be ~211,500 people per House congressional seat.

With the current US census hitting approx 320 million... that works out to be ~735,600 folks per House congressional seat.

Nearly 3x as much now as it were since the last time House was expanded.

Would more House members be responsive? Or, would it have an opposite effect?

Not sure I'd advocate increasing the House 3x the size... but, I'm just spitballing here.

It's an interesting thought. I think modern communications and transportation have actually made it easier for a MoC to reach out. I think plenty still do, but compared to most of history, MoCs have moved from seeing themselves as representing the well being of their constituents to a more ideological or party loyalist position. This isn't unique (see Radical Republicans), it's just a shift in approach.

As always, this comes down to voters. yes, gerrymandering is an issue. There's obscene amounts of money for ads. But at the end of the day, people still file into church basements and middle school gyms and vote for these people.

 Polonius wrote:
It's an interesting thought. I think modern communications and transportation have actually made it easier for a MoC to reach out. I think plenty still do, but compared to most of history, MoCs have moved from seeing themselves as representing the well being of their constituents to a more ideological or party loyalist position. This isn't unique (see Radical Republicans), it's just a shift in approach.

As always, this comes down to voters. yes, gerrymandering is an issue. There's obscene amounts of money for ads. But at the end of the day, people still file into church basements and middle school gyms and vote for these people.

Indeed.

'Tis why events like the Tea Party in 2010 was so distruptive as it was a shock to the status quo.

Here's a chart I found:


Not sure if this is a bad thing... or just a "thing", but it sure is something to ponder.

I think expanding the house would be a good idea. That is a pretty revealing chart. Maybe we should tie the house numbers to population growth. I also think expanding the number or justices on the Supreme Court would help. That way the loss and replacement of a single justice might not seem like as big of a deal. How it would be done would be tricky in order to avoid not looking like you are artificially trying to pack it with you own nominees. Maybe expand it by ten and let each party pick five justices to be put forward.

But the problem with that is the parties have nothing ti do with the system. Unlike in a Parliamentary system, our system is designed without parties in mind, and decisions are supposed to by made by individuals voting the way they see best, not party elites.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But the problem with that is the parties have nothing ti do with the system. Unlike in a Parliamentary system, our system is designed without parties in mind, and decisions are supposed to by made by individuals voting the way they see best, not party elites.

You are correct, it wasn't supposed to be this way. But the way they designed the thing basically ensured it. Whether it's a good thing or not, it's what we have, and we had better figure out how to fit this round peg into the square hole.

@whembly: it looks like Trump is going to give you that list you were wanting. Better get your Trump hat ordered soon. It's almost like he can read your mind and is appealing straight to you. Scary thought, huh? http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/20/donald-trump-says-hell-list-his-top-supreme-court-picks/?_r=0

 Polonius wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Except it doesn't work that way. As Romney famously said, it wasn't his job to care about 47% of the country. Politicians barely care about the people who voted for them; they don't care at all about the people who didn't vote for them. There was a time when an elected official actually cared about the concerns of his district, but now it's party first, everything else dead last.

I've been hearing the same thing. I work in the Disability adjudication office for SSA, and we've actually seen a decrease in Congressional inquiries even as our backlog increases. Basically, members of congress aren't as involved in constituent engagement.

They seem only involved in fundraising at this point.

I think the problem with expanding the house is that it's already arguably so big as to be unwieldy (this is why membership was capped a century ago). Especially given its make up;



Is it any wonder nothing gets done? Just look at the way it's laid out.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

@whembly: it looks like Trump is going to give you that list you were wanting. Better get your Trump hat ordered soon. It's almost like he can read your mind and is appealing straight to you. Scary thought, huh? http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/20/donald-trump-says-hell-list-his-top-supreme-court-picks/?_r=0

Okay... that's ridiculously spooky...

I'll... assess his list and make my determination.

Trump is really making me pine for Cruz to win... CRUZ! (egads!)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the problem with expanding the house is that it's already arguably so big as to be unwieldy (this is why membership was capped a century ago). Especially given its make up;

Spoiler:

Is it any wonder nothing gets done? Just look at the way it's laid out.

Yeah... that's valid.

Are you arguing to decrease it?

How about just getting rid of the house entirely and replace them with an app? The direct will of the people.*

*Said nearly half in jest.

 Polonius wrote:
It's an interesting thought. I think modern communications and transportation have actually made it easier for a MoC to reach out. I think plenty still do, but compared to most of history, MoCs have moved from seeing themselves as representing the well being of their constituents to a more ideological or party loyalist position. This isn't unique (see Radical Republicans), it's just a shift in approach.

As always, this comes down to voters. yes, gerrymandering is an issue. There's obscene amounts of money for ads. But at the end of the day, people still file into church basements and middle school gyms and vote for these people.

I know it's already been mentioned, but the reason nothing gets done is that voters and politicians are acting like we are a parliamentary republic, but our system isn't set up for this kind of government. Heck, they claim that gaining control of the senate and house gives them a mandate over who the president should be. Maybe we should just get a prime minister instead.

We can end up with a government where one party controls 100% of all seats at the state or federal level without ever getting more than 51% of the entire vote.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think expanding the house would be a good idea. That is a pretty revealing chart. Maybe we should tie the house numbers to population growth. I also think expanding the number or justices on the Supreme Court would help. That way the loss and replacement of a single justice might not seem like as big of a deal.

I actually like that idea. Lets go FDR and have 15.

I don't know if there is anything like an ideal proportion of representation. The UK has 650 elected MPs, compared to under 600 congressmen and senators for the whole of the USA which has five times the population. So, we are supposedly much better represented. However, people still feel a disengagement from democracy and government. I believe this is because of the First Past The Post system. This system always produces a definitive results, but at the cost of ignoring minority views, or even majority views that aren't represented on the ballot. I believe some form of proportional representation would help. All countries with PR have more parties, with governments consisting more often of coalitions.

The other thing I would like to see is a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper, to allow people to register dissatisfaction with all available options. Combined with a law requiring a "quorum" of perhaps 55% of the electorate not voting None.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think expanding the house would be a good idea. That is a pretty revealing chart. Maybe we should tie the house numbers to population growth. I also think expanding the number or justices on the Supreme Court would help. That way the loss and replacement of a single justice might not seem like as big of a deal.

I actually like that idea. Lets go FDR and have 15.

I was thinking nineteen (let's make those high school civics students earn those A's), but baby steps are good too.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The other thing I would like to see is a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper, to allow people to register dissatisfaction with all available options. Combined with a law requiring a "quorum" of perhaps 55% of the electorate not voting None.

That's a fantastic idea. But, I wouldn't do that for elected positions, only for policy changes.

 whembly wrote:

Do ya'll think we need to expand the congressional critter counts? At least in the House to be more responsive?

Absolutely not. The more responsive a legislative body is to its constituents the worse it becomes.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Do ya'll think we need to expand the congressional critter counts? At least in the House to be more responsive?

Absolutely not. The more responsive a legislative body is to its constituents the worse it becomes.

That's a pretty definitive statement... care to expound on that more?

If you spend more time worried about getting fired than you do worrying about governing the system grinds to a standstill. Increase the threat of loosing your job and it only gets worse.

The House is already a joke. Two year terms, over half of which is spend campaigning for the next term, repeat for life.

Maybe if the congress critters didn't go into it as a career so that they are there for life, it would not be repeated for life....

They should be in constant fear for their jobs. The problem as I see it is that they are not, re-election has become almost automatic until the recent trend to primary some of these crap bags.

 CptJake wrote:
Maybe if the congress critters didn't go into it as a career so that they are there for life, it would not be repeated for life....

They should be in constant fear for their jobs. The problem as I see it is that they are not, re-election has become almost automatic until the recent trend to primary some of these crap bags.

When the fear leads to not governing, then it is a bad thing though.

So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

 whembly wrote:

Not sure I'd advocate increasing the House 3x the size... but, I'm just spitballing here.

I think that there'd be a few hurdles here. As others have mentioned, communications are more effective today, so it may not be entirely necessary to increase the size of the House.

But the hurdle, or hurdles I'd think would be hardest to get passed, first would be the cost. 3x more people making HoR pay is going to significantly increase tax burden on people. Where's that going to come from? With our current policy of legislating in favor of lobbying businesses, it wouldn't come from them.

That cost, as well as the increase in personnel is most definitely NOT going to go over well with the Libertarian/TEA Party crowds, as that is a visible increase in the size of government.


Personally, I could see a House being 3x the current size, if we had a more Federalist system, like Germany, where seats are allocated per party/population, but that would obviously necessitate a massive overhaul of our entire legislative system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

IIRC, it may have been whembly who posts on these comments that the party line drama BS would increase dramatically under such a system, and even less would get done.


I can see where that argument is coming from, and I'd be naive to dismiss it, but I also think that term limits need to be imposed on congress critters.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So, term limits. 2 terms. No need for fear at that point, and you don't have to worry so much about guys looking for a career.

IIRC, it may have been whembly who posts on these comments that the party line drama BS would increase dramatically under such a system, and even less would get done.


I can see where that argument is coming from, and I'd be naive to dismiss it, but I also think that term limits need to be imposed on congress critters.

When one party is refusing to even consider doing its job, how much less can get done?