Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sactowndog

Senate Gamesmanship thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Well considering I think a simple majority should be sufficient to pass legislation, i am sure you are not surprised that I do not like that a bill needs 60 votes to get a vote. 

I don't like minority rule. I think our current political system is almost set up worse for majority (party) rule. One party having a majority is not in line with the majority of people. 

If we could get, say, ranked choice voting and multi member districts and splinter our politics into even 4 main parties, great! a simple majority would require compromise with at least some spectrum of political votes and the cabinet would also represent that. we're not there now though. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SalinasSpartan said:

Cmon man, you know what I mean. I do not like that a bill with less then 60 votes can be blocked by the mere threat of a filibuster. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I don't like minority rule. I think our current political system is almost set up worse for majority (party) rule. One party having a majority is not in line with the majority of people. 

If we could get, say, ranked choice voting and multi member districts and splinter our politics into even 4 main parties, great! a simple majority would require compromise with at least some spectrum of political votes and the cabinet would also represent that. we're not there now though. 

It's not minority rule.  Schumer is the most powerful man in America right now.  It is anti mob rule.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

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.

Yes, and you like minority rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I don't like minority rule. I think our current political system is almost set up worse for majority (party) rule. One party having a majority is not in line with the majority of people. 

If we could get, say, ranked choice voting and multi member districts and splinter our politics into even 4 main parties, great! a simple majority would require compromise with at least some spectrum of political votes and the cabinet would also represent that. we're not there now though. 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Yes, and you like minority rule. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

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.

They don’t “have a say”, they can block legislation whenever they want as long as they have 41 votes. They should have a say, but when it’s clear that they are no longer debating and are just obstructing the majority leader should be able to say, “cool, you had your voice, now let’s do our job and vote”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

They don’t “have a say”, they can block legislation whenever they want as long as they have 41 votes. They should have a say, but when it’s clear that they are no longer debating and are just obstructing the majority yleader should be able to say, “cool, you had your voice, now let’s do our job and vote”. 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

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

Do you mean more problematic than multi member districts, or more problematic than our current system?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It's not minority rule.  Schumer is the most powerful man in America right now.  It is anti mob rule.

 

Halfman, it's the Senate :) 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, happycamper said:

Do you mean more problematic than multi member districts, or more problematic than our current system?

 

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

What Supreme Court Bullshit?  Acting within all historical norms?

 

Baloney.  Norms would have been give him a hearing and a vote.  If Republicans wanted to vote him down fine.  That would be historical norms.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

This issue only ever arises in a trifecta.  The last time it arouse, 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.

 

It is short sighted to want both chambers of Congress to be able to pass bills with a simple majority with no possibility of a filibuster? I mean, ok. A lot of other developed countries function just fine without the equivalent of a filibuster, are Americans just so uniquely stupid that we need this paternalistic bullshit from the Senate where they protect us from ourselves? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

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.  

Ideally for me with ranked choice voting you'd break the Gingrich style party system and have a "mushy middle" again. IDK if that would actually happen, but it isn't happening now, so :shrug:

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Halfman, it's the Senate :) 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Baloney.  Norms would have been give him a hearing and a vote.  If Republicans wanted to vote him down fine.  That would be historical norms.   

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.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Ideally for me with ranked choice voting you'd break the Gingrich style party system and have a "mushy middle" again. IDK if that would actually happen, but it isn't happening now, so :shrug:

 

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 less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

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?

Oh we are. But the Senate is built on purpose for minority rule. Which... is a pretty good argument for the filibuster. IMO it's a better argument for making every state have 3 senators and having a single multi member election for all 3 senators in the state. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

It is short sighted to want both chambers of Congress to be able to pass bills with a simple majority with no possibility of a filibuster? I mean, ok. A lot of other developed countries function just fine without the equivalent of a filibuster, are Americans just so uniquely stupid that we need this paternalistic bullshit from the Senate where they protect us from ourselves? 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Oh we are. But the Senate is built on purpose for minority rule. Which... is a pretty good argument for the filibuster. IMO it's a better argument for making every state have 3 senators and having a single multi member election for all 3 senators in the state. 

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 best, and why I think rules that protect the minority in trifectas, especially very narrow trifectas like we have now are important.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...