Jump to content

halfmanhalfbronco

Members
  • Content Count

    30,864
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About halfmanhalfbronco

  • Rank
    Would rather be fishing.

Profile Information

  • Team
    Boise State
  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Boise
  • Interests
    Sports, Fishing, Hiking.

Recent Profile Visitors

32,456 profile views
  1. Also, people do not realize just how powerful the house speaker is. There has been a growing notion that the house does not matter because the Senate majority leader can just kill their bills. But the House speaker can make it so the Senate can never even vote on policy that the controlling house party does not agree with. Mitch could kill a bill, nancy could make it so no conservative legislation could even get to that point.
  2. This is basically what I have been saying. The Senate was designed to function as the biggest tool to protect the minority. It was also designed to be the biggest check on the Executive branch. The House gets to tell them what legislation the Senate will even have a voice or vote on. It's why we saw some gridlock this year. The House was throwing up bad faith legislation after bad faith legislation and no legislation that would be considered "somewhat or mostly conservative". The Senate can only consider legislation that comes from the House. This is why I like divided government the be
  3. I mean America is way more diverse in needs, culture and demographics than any other country on earth. Both parties have decided to recently cede their power for expediency to the executive when government is not divided. We saw this with killing the filibuster for Judicial and Cabinet appointments. I don't like this trend and yes, I am very fearful of what a right/left wing populist that senators are terrified of, like Trump, could do if all they had to do was bully 50 members of the Senate. I get where you are coming from, I hope you can at least understand where I am.
  4. I mean that is a wild hypothetical. It maaaybe true but I doubt it. I mean from my point of view I would dig it. It would give small parties outsized influence wildly disproportionate from their first place votes. Libertarian minority rule FTW!!!! We may get a few Libertarians in the Senate and House that only got a small percentage of the first place votes. Voter exhaustion is a real thing in RCV systems. The most partisan or dedicated actually follow it all the way through while the "I guess I can show up to vote once every 2-4 year" crowd has their vote mean a whole lot l
  5. That's not "Supreme Court BS". The votes were not there. They were there for ACB. When the votes are not there, in election years, nominations are not confirmed, when they are, they are. You are arguing a technicality and ignoring the reality.
  6. We are living in a triumvirate where the only people that matter are the House Speaker, the Senate Majority leader and the POTUS. The House and Senate minority leaders are small fish in comparison. They have very few tools, removing them, especially during trifecta years, only consolidates the power more in the Executive. I thought we were all on the same page that is a bad thing?
  7. It depends on your point of view. If your point of view is that minority rule is a threat, ranked choice voting is more problematic than our current system. The popular vote winners lose at a much higher rate. Tribalism is still tribalism, people care far more about their first choice than their second or third or fourth.
  8. This issue only ever arises in a trifecta. The last time it arose, it blocked an anti abortion bill. Again, imagine a world with a populist like Trump, who could threaten to say mean things on twitter to his 51 Senators who do not pass every piece of legislation he supports and de facto control the legislative process. You are short sighted.
  9. The Senate minority never rules. They just have a say. Hence why you have had your panties in a wad over the Mitch majority for years. You want the minority to have no say. That's ok.
  10. Ranked choice voting is more problematic. In this study of 4 elections using ranked choice voting leading up to 2016 in the US, none of the winners of the popular vote won an election with ranked choice voting. In 2010 the Australian Labor Party won the House of Representatives with just 38 percent of first-place votes on the initial ballot, while the second-place Liberal-National coalition captured 43 percent. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/e/1083/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf
  11. It's not minority rule. Schumer is the most powerful man in America right now. It is anti mob rule.
  12. Votes to pass do not equal cloture. I know what you mean. Yes, you want as much power as possible invested in the executive and to confirm populism as the go to political strategy. I know exactly what you mean.
  13. A bill only needs 51 votes to get passed. Or 50+VP.
  14. What Supreme Court Bullshit? Acting within all historical norms?
×
×
  • Create New...