The Next President is...

[HeloDude]

31 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Well hopefully should it be attempted, with someone casting the DECIDING vote on appointing themselves for a lifetime on the nation’s highest court…there would be a challenge.

Anyone worthy of actually being on that bench would recuse themselves from that vote. Also, who the brought up constitutionality? I said she shouldn’t be allowed.

You originally said, “Surely she wouldn’t be allowed to break the tie in the Senate to appoint herself.”

So if you’re asking about what is allowed vs not allowed wrt appointing/confirming a Supreme Court justice, then you are bringing up what is Constitutional and what is not.  Now if you want to discuss your opinion on whether or not that situation would be good for the county, etc then that’s fine, but that has nothing to do with “not being allowed”. 
 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

My bet is conservatives would be using the exact same tactics if the tables were turned. Both parties seem to be more than willing  to use “nuclear” options these days. Your argument is valid but I doubt you’d be making it if the shoe was on the other foot. 

So why didn’t the conservatives/GOP change the filibuster rules in the recent past to get bills passed on a simple majority vote?

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

My bet is conservatives would be using the exact same tactics if the tables were turned. Both parties seem to be more than willing  to use “nuclear” options these days. Your argument is valid but I doubt you’d be making it if the shoe was on the other foot. 

Maybe this will help refresh your memory; I don't think it's a smart bet for ya...here's Mitch imploring his colleagues to not change the rules, in no uncertain terms, lest they come to regret it.

So no, Rs have not been the ones in recent memory changing the rules of the game to suit their position - that is a distinctly democrat mode of operation. The whole reason for the filibuster is precisely so you don't have a group of 51v49, puffed chests, running amok with a "mandate" to "get things done." The Ds have 0 mandate. They need to govern with this as their reality - because if they do change the rules, you better believe it's gonna come back on them - hard.

 

[Prozac]

19 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So why didn’t the conservatives/GOP change the filibuster rules in the recent past to get bills passed on a simple majority vote?

Uhhhh……

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937

[HeloDude]

11 hours ago, Negatory said:

And supporting the filibuster is inane. There are actually no coherent reasons for it - it entirely “cheats” the planned way government legislation is supposed to work and forces supermajorities when they never were supposed to be required. The only argument is “hurr, durr, it’s been this way for a while.” Oh, and it typically helps conservatives more than liberals.

Just so I understand you correctly…

You’re saying that the Dems/progressives would support the GOP getting rid of the filibuster in 2025 if the GOP has the House, the Senate, and the Presidency?  Or are you just saying that you would support ending the filibuster in 2025 in the above scenario? 

There’s obviously nothing Constitutionally wrong with ending the filibuster, and if it happened, then so be it.  But I think it will be funny when the party (who currently desires to end it) will be upset when the other party uses the same tactics to get their way.  We definitely shall see.

[HeloDude]

5 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Uhhhh……

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/senate-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option-236937

Unhhh…please read my post again.  I said getting bills passed, did I not?  So once again, tell me why then didn’t the GOP change the filibuster rule to get bills passed in the Senate without having to get past a filibuster?
 

And wrt Senate confirmations, Harry Reid first changed the rules wrt confirming federal judges on simple vote   (no 60 vote threshold to end debate) and the GOP took the next step on Supreme Court justices.  Harry Reid never needed to confirm an Obama SCOTUS nominee after he changed the rules (I’m sure he would have if needed), but he laid the ground work for Trump getting 3 nominees confirmed.  It’s cool though…I imagine Biden will get one pick through on a simple majority as well.  

[SurelySerious]

You originally said, “Surely she wouldn’t be allowed to break the tie in the Senate to appoint herself.”
So if you’re asking about what is allowed vs not allowed wrt appointing/confirming a Supreme Court justice, then you are bringing up what is Constitutional and what is not.  Now if you want to discuss your opinion on whether or not that situation would be good for the county, etc then that’s fine, but that has nothing to do with “not being allowed”. 
 

All the Senate procedural rules are not in the constitution, so don’t be pedantic.

[nsplayr]

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

That's not true. The filibuster serves an important role to keep bipartisanship. 

From my view this is pretty clearly untrue. With no filibuster, the majority would be able to pass more legislation, and if these bills are going to pass, there's incentive for minority-party members to "get to yes" and to also try to shape the bill to fit their state/local/partisan concerns somewhat.

For example, if Build Back Better was going to pass anyways, I think Murkowski/Collins/etc. would be interested in voting yes if they had some demands met in the bill. It helps their "moderate" brand and also secures some wins for their constituents or on more minor issues they care about. Same goes on the other side, Manchin & Simena would likely be inclined to support a GOP bill that was sure to pass anyways if they could get some specific measures included. In other words, more bipartisanship than we have now.

Ending earmarks was also a bad policy IMHO because they allowed individual legislators to secure projects for their specific constituents rather than just rubber-stamping whatever the national party wanted. It was a way to bring the random senator or two on board with an appropriate amount of federal cheddar for their state. As long as they didn't personally benefit, i.e. the benefit went to their constituents, I have zero problem with "procuring some votes" in this fashion to paraphrase Lincoln.

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

Those reforms would only last as long as the Democrats hold government and then in possibly 4 to 8 years the country would be yo-yo'd the other direction when Republicans did the exact same thing.

Which is the process, subject to judicial review and the will of the voters, that happens in literally every single other modern democratic nation. If you have won full control of the legislature and the executive through free and fair elections, you should be able to govern!

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

There are very moderate republicans in Senate. If Democrats can't get 9 of them to cross the isle they are trying to pass an agenda that is too extreme and need to come back to the center. 

But there are not 9 "moderate" Republicans, nor Democrats in today's Senate. The parties did used to have more overlap where there were more than a handful of Republicans more liberal than the most conservative Democrat and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. Finding an agenda that would garner 60+ votes in the senate is why right now we're can't even pass basic appropriations bills with any consistency and why reconciliation is used in every single congress as the "one weird trick" bill to let the majority forward some of their priorities. Republicans are just currently more ok with the status quo than Democrats because the things they as a party basically all agree on, tax cuts and conservative judges, can be passed with 51 votes; Democrats' agendas are a bit broader and thus their frustration.

8 hours ago, FLEA said:

I cant, in recent memory, recall Republicans threatening to end the filibuster.

"The very outdated filibuster rule must go. Budget reconciliation is killing R's in Senate. Mitch M, go to 51 Votes NOW and WIN. IT'S TIME!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2017"

To be crystal clear, I fully support the filibuster ending in the Senate, even if that happens in January 2025 with Republican full control. The country will be better for it in the long run.

[Lord Ratner]

27 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

But there are not 9 "moderate" Republicans, nor Democrats in today's Senate. The parties did used to have more overlap where there were more than a handful of Republicans more liberal than the most conservative Democrat and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. Finding an agenda that would garner 60+ votes in the senate is why right now we're can't even pass basic appropriations bills with any consistency and why reconciliation is used in every single congress as the "one weird trick" bill to let the majority forward some of their priorities. Republicans are just currently more ok with the status quo than Democrats because the things they as a party basically all agree on, tax cuts and conservative judges, can be passed with 51 votes; Democrats' agendas are a bit broader and thus their frustration.

The solution to a lack of moderation is not to reward a lack of moderation. 

 

It's very easy to win 51% of the Senate. It's a lot harder to win 60%, and damn near impossible to win 67%. 75% would take a massive societal shift.

 

Those are good thresholds for the types of changes that requires those thresholds.

 

Our system was literally founded by people who were terrified of mob rule. I'm perpetually amazed by how many people, who like all humans dislike change in their own lives, seem oblivious to the dangers of minimally-supported change.

 

34 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

The country will be better for it in the long run.

Shortsightedness is the hallmark of liberal thought. Some of the most consequential legislation in history made it past the filibuster, but you think the problems we face today are higher-stakes? That's the second hallmark of liberal thought: every issue is the-most-significant-challenge-we've-ever-faced.

 

But it's all lies. Cynical politicians (who know they are presiding over a fair and functioning society) are manufacturing fear and outrage to fuel their vanity and power. There's no money in peace. And they are going to cause a regression that's going to hurt people while they skitter off to the shadows like the cockroaches they are. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

From my view this is pretty clearly untrue. With no filibuster, the majority would be able to pass more legislation, and if these bills are going to pass, there's incentive for minority-party members to "get to yes" and to also try to shape the bill to fit their state/local/partisan concerns somewhat.

Ok, this makes no sense logically. For instance, if the Democrats killed the filibuster, and passed a bill, and the Republican's said "ok lets get to yes", why would the democrats care? The Republican party will approach with their recommended list of changes and the Democrats will just say "no thanks, we can pass it without these changes already, so shove them."

For example, if Build Back Better was going to pass anyways, I think Murkowski/Collins/etc. would be interested in voting yes if they had some demands met in the bill. It helps their "moderate" brand and also secures some wins for their constituents or on more minor issues they care about. Same goes on the other side, Manchin & Simena would likely be inclined to support a GOP bill that was sure to pass anyways if they could get some specific measures included. In other words, more bipartisanship than we have now.

But the Democrats have no incentive to write those moderate demands into the bill. They are going to pass it anyway, without those demands. Right now, they do have to appeal Murkowski and Collins and those measures to get thrown in those bills. What you are describing is the system WITH the filibuster. 

Ending earmarks was also a bad policy IMHO because they allowed individual legislators to secure projects for their specific constituents rather than just rubber-stamping whatever the national party wanted. It was a way to bring the random senator or two on board with an appropriate amount of federal cheddar for their state. As long as they didn't personally benefit, i.e. the benefit went to their constituents, I have zero problem with "procuring some votes" in this fashion to paraphrase Lincoln.

I actually agree with you to a limited extent about earmarking but they needed to lay down some rules as well. Specialized projects would go along way to helping get moderate votes but they need to limit those projects to things that also have national benefit as well. (Just extra benefits for said district like labor or wages). 

Which is the process, subject to judicial review and the will of the voters, that happens in literally every single other modern democratic nation. If you have won full control of the legislature and the executive through free and fair elections, you should be able to govern!

This is not at all true. I mean maybe it is somewhere, but my belief is you are probably referring to Europe and that is not a good representation of how most European parliaments work. In Europe most governments are multi-party and parties are built around singular issues, like the environment, healthcare, women's rights, etc.... Voters elect parties based on issues that are important to them and those parliamentarians are completely dedicated to working progress on those issues. However, because there are so many parties, the Green Party, for instance, is never going to get 51% of the house. Therefore, they build coalitions with other parties by agreeing to quid quo pro's on specific legislations. "I will help you pass your clean energy bill but in return you are going to vote yes on my highway improvement bill." These coalitions and alliances change and morph as figureheads of parties and the national government change. In other words, bipartisanship isn't an issue in these democracies because they are not bipolar democracies, they are multi-polar and they have different tensions and nuances to make them work.

Also.... Dont take political structure advice from Europe. The UK for god sakes still a pseudo-feudalism with an entire parliament house being ruled by landed nobles. (The house of Lords still requires you inherit your seat by birth.) 

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

But there are not 9 "moderate" Republicans, nor Democrats in today's Senate. The parties did used to have more overlap where there were more than a handful of Republicans more liberal than the most conservative Democrat and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. Finding an agenda that would garner 60+ votes in the senate is why right now we're can't even pass basic appropriations bills with any consistency and why reconciliation is used in every single congress as the "one weird trick" bill to let the majority forward some of their priorities. Republicans are just currently more ok with the status quo than Democrats because the things they as a party basically all agree on, tax cuts and conservative judges, can be passed with 51 votes; Democrats' agendas are a bit broader and thus their frustration.

Bro you literally just branded Murkowski and Collins as moderate and then deny they exist. If you cant find 9 votes you have two choices. Bring your platform more to the right, or get more senators elected. In either scenario, it makes it clear that radical legislation requires a clear mandate from the American voter base. Skimping by with just 51% of the vote is not a mandate. Its one held breath of air that the American public "barely" trust you to run the country. 

"The very outdated filibuster rule must go. Budget reconciliation is killing R's in Senate. Mitch M, go to 51 Votes NOW and WIN. IT'S TIME!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2017"

This is fair. My admission that I couldn't think of Republicans was quite honest. I just don't have it on the forefront of my memory. I would not agree to either party ending it. 

To be crystal clear, I fully support the filibuster ending in the Senate, even if that happens in January 2025 with Republican full control. The country will be better for it in the long run.

You would be living in a fascist Utopia. I hardly believe you really thought through it. We need to drive to keep the US in the center, not on the edges. The center is where we find national cohesion. If you drive a far left or right agenda into the country, it won't bring unity. It will not bring the voters more left or right. It will alienate a base. When you alienate that base far enough, you get lawlessness and political violence. No thanks. 

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by FLEA

[ClearedHot]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

To be crystal clear, I fully support the filibuster ending in the Senate, even if that happens in January 2025 with Republican full control. The country will be better for it in the long run.

I am sorry but that is just insanity to contemplate, I don't want either side to have that much power. 

I presume you've read the Constitution, have you read the Federalist Papers?  I am not a scholar but from my fumbling attempts to read and understand there is an major theme that pops out.  The Framers wanted compromise, discussion, debate and consensus.  I dare say the vast majority of folks on here and in both parties are not full on extremists, but the current political environment has both sides trying to rule from the extreme.  I am a Republican but I believe in Gay marriage and abortion (yes it is horrific but I will never try to tell a woman what she can do with her body), and many social causes.   I don't want the AOC and Bernie Sanders wack jobs passing Marxist policies and I don't want the right wing religious zealots trying to force everyone to attend church and rule by the bible.  I completely disagree with Trumps call to end the Filibuster, just like I think it was a HUGE mistake for Harry Reid to invoke the nuclear option.  As much as I disliked Clinton I give him great credit for reaching across the aisle to work with Newt Gingrich to pass legislation in the middle.  Same with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'neil...neither side fully one and neither side fully lost.  Ending the Filibuster is poison if we ever want to get back to the middle in this country.

[nsplayr]

Just a final round-up to respond and then I'll let it rest from my end at least.

BLUF wall of text, feel free to keep on scrolling. 🇺🇸

Ending the Filibuster in the Senate

Ending the filibuster in the Senate is not a recently-held view of mine, and it's derived from the inability of the majority to govern, which to me is anti-democratic (small d democratic). Both parties (or any party or political group!), when being freely and fairly elected by a majority of voters, should have the ability to govern and deliver on the platforms they ran on.

As a basic principle, a majority of voters should translate to a majority of elected officials should translate to the power to govern; the U.S. has a variety of systems that thwart that basic premise and I think most of them should change.

• If I could wave a magic wand I would make the Senate proportionally representative like the House or dramatically reduce its power, I would uncap the size of the House of Representatives, do away with the electoral college, and end lifetime appointment to SCOTUS in favor of 18 year terms that rotate on a predictable and fixed timetable. I would also make voter registration automatic and generally implement measures that make it easier for eligible voters to exercise that right. I'd experiment with with multi-member districts, state-wide proportional representation rather than geographic districts, preference voting and/or ranked choice voting, etc. All to the end of making our political system more small-d democratic and responsive to the voters.
• Little of that is probably ever gonna happen, but that's where I stand - small d democratic reforms are both good and necessary.

Why Would Any Legislator Vote Against Their Party?

There absolutely is incentive for the majority party to get minority party members on board. This is observable in many other countries and in previous political eras here at home. Going with regular majority rule also allows more elected leaders to vote their conscious and the will of their constituents rather than getting shoehorned into always feeling pressured to support the national party and powerful leaders legislative leaders like the Speaker and Majority Leader.

• Few people want to be the deciding vote to kill something the majority of their party supports (a la McCain or Manchin), but if the dam has already broken and the bill is passing anyways, you paradoxically see less strident partisanship and more crossover voting. "Selling" your potential yes vote, even if the majority doesn't strictly need it, for specific policy concessions often works! Even large majorities want to be bigger and more robust and to look more bipartisan.
• You see this today mostly on federal judicial appointments precisely because the majority rules and the filibuster isn't in play - opposition members will vote to confirm even if they would not have picked that person because they are going to get confirmed anyways. Legislators like to jump on the team and come on in for the big win as the good Colonel says.
  • Gorsuch got three Dem votes despite the Dems really believing that seat was stolen due to Garland not getting a hearing...because he was getting confirmed anyways. If that vote was subject to a filibuster (and it was at first!) Gorsuch was not getting 60 votes, and even after McConnell changed the rules for SCOTUS to seat him, three Democrats still voted to confirm him! True bipartisanship at work!
  • Collins voted against Coney Barrett because her vote was not deciding one way or the other, freeing her up to exhibit a bit of bipartisanship that's important to her image (or vote her conscious depending on how cynical you are).
  • Sotomayor got nine GOP votes and Kagan got five, because they were clearly getting confirmed by the large Dem majorities anyways.

Other Random Issues

The House of Lords in the UK is pretty complicated but only a small number of its current members (~12%) are hereditary peers. The biggest change took place in 1999 under Blair and more reforms are ongoing. Learn about it here.

I can confirm I have read some of the Federalist Papers and subsequent scholarship about them and our primary founding documents. Social science major in college so that was kind of a requirement. Big fan overall with some caveats. At the time I 100% would have been a Federalist compared to what their political opponents wanted to enact. That being said, political systems are not set in stone nor should they be. Modern problems require modern solutions.

I'm also probably not as "radical left liberal" as some of y'all probably imagine. I'm more of a neoliberal third-way person that can be convinced to support more leftward policies depending on the details. I believe a strong national defense is paramount (plus it puts food on my table haha!), capitalism is great and the best human system we've come up with so far for advancing technology and eliminating poverty, and I'm frustrated by some of the uber-woke folks on the left pushing losing narratives and policies. I go to church, own guns, send my kid to a private (religious) school and I kill people for a living.

If anyone wants to talk big-picture political systems or reform I'd love to offline sometime - I enjoy that more than the horserace and/or the discourse on cable/twitter the older I get.

Cheers 🍻

Edited February 1, 2022 by nsplayr

[SurelySerious]

Just a final round-up to respond and then I'll let it rest from my end at least.
BLUF wall of text, feel free to keep on scrolling. 
Ending the Filibuster in the Senate
Ending the filibuster in the Senate is not a recently-held view of mine, and it's derived from the inability of the majority to govern, which to me is anti-democratic (small d democratic). Both parties (or any party or political group!), when being freely and fairly elected by a majority of voters, should have the ability to govern and deliver on the platforms they ran on.
As a basic principle, a majority of voters should translate to a majority of elected officials should translate to the power to govern; the U.S. has a variety of systems that thwart that basic premise and I think most of them should change.

• If I could wave a magic wand I would make the Senate proportionally representative like the House or dramatically reduce its power, I would uncap the size of the House of Representatives, do away with the electoral college, and end lifetime appointment to SCOTUS in favor of 18 year terms that rotate on a predictable and fixed timetable. I would also make voter registration automatic and generally implement measures that make it easier for eligible voters to exercise that right. I'd experiment with with multi-member districts, state-wide proportional representation rather than geographic districts, preference voting and/or ranked choice voting, etc. All the the end of making our political system more small-d democratic and responsive to the voters.
• Little of that is probably ever gonna happen, but that's where I stand - small d democratic reforms are both good and necessary.

Why Would Any Legislator Vote Against Their Party?
There absolutely is incentive for the majority party to get minority party members on board. This is observable in many other countries and in previous political eras here at home. Going with regular majority rule also allows more elected leaders to vote their conscious and the will of their constituents rather than getting shoehorned into always feeling pressured to support the national party and powerful leaders legislative leaders like the Speaker and Majority Leader.

• Few people want to be the deciding vote to kill something the majority of their party supports (a la McCain or Manchin), but if the dam has already broken and the bill is passing anyways, you paradoxically see less strident partisanship and more crossover voting. "Selling" your potential yes vote, even if the majority doesn't strictly need it, for specific policy concessions often works! Even large majorities want to be bigger and more robust and to look more bipartisan.
• You see this today mostly on federal judicial appointments precisely because the majority rules and the filibuster isn't in play - opposition members will vote to confirm even if they would not have picked that person because they are going to get confirmed anyways. Legislators like to 
  as the good Colonel says.
  • Gorsuch got three Dem votes despite the Dems really believing that seat was stolen due to Garland not getting a hearing...because he was getting confirmed anyways. If that vote was subject to a filibuster (and it was at first!) Gorsuch was not getting 60 votes, and even after McConnell changed the rules for SCOTUS to seat him, three Democrats still voted to confirm him! True bipartisanship at work!
  • Collins voted against Coney Barrett because her vote was not deciding one way or the other, freeing her up to exhibit a bit of bipartisanship that's important to her image (or vote her conscious depending on how cynical you are).
  • Sotomayor got nine GOP votes and Kagan got five, because they were clearly getting confirmed by the large Dem majorities anyways.

Other Random Issues
The House of Lords in the UK is pretty complicated but only a small number of its current members (~12%) are hereditary peers. The biggest change took place in 1999 under Blair and more reforms are ongoing. Learn about it here.
I can confirm I have read some of the Federalist Papers and subsequent scholarship about them and our primary founding documents. Social science major in college so that was kind of a requirement. Big fan overall with some caveats. At the time I 100% would have been a Federalist compared to what their political opponents wanted to enact. That being said, political systems are not set in stone nor should they be. Modern problems require modern solutions.
I'm also probably not as "radical left liberal" as some of y'all probably imagine. I'm more of a neoliberal third-way person that can be convinced to support more leftward policies depending on the details. I believe a strong national defense is paramount (plus it puts food on my table haha!), capitalism is great and the best human system we've come up with so far for advancing technology and eliminating poverty, and I'm frustrated by some of the uber-woke folks on the left pushing losing narratives and policies. I go to church, own gun, send my kid to a private (religious) school and I kill people for a living.
If anyone wants to talk big-picture political systems or reform I'd love to offline sometime - I enjoy that more than the horserace and/or the discourse on cable/twitter the older I get.
Cheers 

So you would like to go directly against the constitution and the deliberate balance of a not-proportional chamber. Noted.

[Waingro]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

So you would like to go directly against the constitution and the deliberate balance of a not-proportional chamber. Noted.

If only the founding fathers had created a mechanism in which we could continually redefine what was considered constitutional...

Also, if you think there's some sacred etched-in-stone tradition regarding balance and proportionality, I recommend you read up on the Apportionment Act(s). Here's a good place to start. I doubt the founder fathers mean for a Wyoming vote to have more weight than a California vote. Or for wild gerrymandering from anyone. But here we are. 

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, Waingro said:

I doubt the founder fathers mean for a Wyoming vote to have more weight than a California vote. Or for wild gerrymandering from anyone. But here we are. 

Are you referring to the fact that each state gets two senators regardless of its state’s population and/or that each state gets the number of electoral votes equating to their number of senators and representatives?

[Waingro]

30 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Are you referring to the fact that each state gets two senators regardless of its state’s population and/or that each state gets the number of electoral votes equating to their number of senators and representatives?

Neither - that the number of representatives in each state, and thus electors, was historically a function of population. The apportionment act capped that number at 435, and a state has to have at least 1. If California or New York still had representatives, and thus electors, at the same proportion as Wyoming, there wouldn't be many close presidential elections. And we'd need a much bigger Capitol building!

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Just a final round-up to respond and then I'll let it rest from my end at least.

BLUF wall of text, feel free to keep on scrolling. 🇺🇸

Ending the Filibuster in the Senate

Ending the filibuster in the Senate is not a recently-held view of mine, and it's derived from the inability of the majority to govern, which to me is anti-democratic (small d democratic). Both parties (or any party or political group!), when being freely and fairly elected by a majority of voters, should have the ability to govern and deliver on the platforms they ran on.

As a basic principle, a majority of voters should translate to a majority of elected officials should translate to the power to govern; the U.S. has a variety of systems that thwart that basic premise and I think most of them should change.

• If I could wave a magic wand I would make the Senate proportionally representative like the House or dramatically reduce its power, I would uncap the size of the House of Representatives, do away with the electoral college, and end lifetime appointment to SCOTUS in favor of 18 year terms that rotate on a predictable and fixed timetable. I would also make voter registration automatic and generally implement measures that make it easier for eligible voters to exercise that right. I'd experiment with with multi-member districts, state-wide proportional representation rather than geographic districts, preference voting and/or ranked choice voting, etc. All the the end of making our political system more small-d democratic and responsive to the voters.
• Little of that is probably ever gonna happen, but that's where I stand - small d democratic reforms are both good and necessary.

Why Would Any Legislator Vote Against Their Party?

There absolutely is incentive for the majority party to get minority party members on board. This is observable in many other countries and in previous political eras here at home. Going with regular majority rule also allows more elected leaders to vote their conscious and the will of their constituents rather than getting shoehorned into always feeling pressured to support the national party and powerful leaders legislative leaders like the Speaker and Majority Leader.

• Few people want to be the deciding vote to kill something the majority of their party supports (a la McCain or Manchin), but if the dam has already broken and the bill is passing anyways, you paradoxically see less strident partisanship and more crossover voting. "Selling" your potential yes vote, even if the majority doesn't strictly need it, for specific policy concessions often works! Even large majorities want to be bigger and more robust and to look more bipartisan.
• You see this today mostly on federal judicial appointments precisely because the majority rules and the filibuster isn't in play - opposition members will vote to confirm even if they would not have picked that person because they are going to get confirmed anyways. Legislators like to jump on the team and come on in for the big win as the good Colonel says.
  • Gorsuch got three Dem votes despite the Dems really believing that seat was stolen due to Garland not getting a hearing...because he was getting confirmed anyways. If that vote was subject to a filibuster (and it was at first!) Gorsuch was not getting 60 votes, and even after McConnell changed the rules for SCOTUS to seat him, three Democrats still voted to confirm him! True bipartisanship at work!
  • Collins voted against Coney Barrett because her vote was not deciding one way or the other, freeing her up to exhibit a bit of bipartisanship that's important to her image (or vote her conscious depending on how cynical you are).
  • Sotomayor got nine GOP votes and Kagan got five, because they were clearly getting confirmed by the large Dem majorities anyways.

Other Random Issues

The House of Lords in the UK is pretty complicated but only a small number of its current members (~12%) are hereditary peers. The biggest change took place in 1999 under Blair and more reforms are ongoing. Learn about it here.

I can confirm I have read some of the Federalist Papers and subsequent scholarship about them and our primary founding documents. Social science major in college so that was kind of a requirement. Big fan overall with some caveats. At the time I 100% would have been a Federalist compared to what their political opponents wanted to enact. That being said, political systems are not set in stone nor should they be. Modern problems require modern solutions.

I'm also probably not as "radical left liberal" as some of y'all probably imagine. I'm more of a neoliberal third-way person that can be convinced to support more leftward policies depending on the details. I believe a strong national defense is paramount (plus it puts food on my table haha!), capitalism is great and the best human system we've come up with so far for advancing technology and eliminating poverty, and I'm frustrated by some of the uber-woke folks on the left pushing losing narratives and policies. I go to church, own gun, send my kid to a private (religious) school and I kill people for a living.

If anyone wants to talk big-picture political systems or reform I'd love to offline sometime - I enjoy that more than the horserace and/or the discourse on cable/twitter the older I get.

Cheers 🍻

So in summary, we meet in the middle on somethings...just like the framers intended.

[Day Man]

On 1/30/2022 at 11:40 AM, ClearedHot said:

13 dead Marines and a hand waive of both responsibility and compassion by some on this forum.  Whatever you think about staying or leave Afghanistan what happened was an absolute abortion and lays squarely at the feet of the Commander in Chief.

honest question: is the CINC involved in any of the planning around an op like this?

[ClearedHot]

15 minutes ago, Day Man said:

honest question: is the CINC involved in any of the planning around an op like this?

Do I know if he directed or gave approval to close Bagram...nope.  Do I suspect he forced them to close the base...yup.  

Do I know if he was briefed on every part of the plan...nope.  Do I suspect he and his political minions had their hands in it, of course, every administration does.

Did he say we wouldn't leave Americans behind then lie and set the conditions and timeline for an expedited withdraw...Yup

He is the Commander in Chief...not a SINGLE Person has been fired or held accountable for the loss of those 13 Marines. 

[Lawman]

Do I know if he directed or gave approval to close Bagram...nope.  Do I suspect he forced them to close the base...yup.  
Do I know if he was briefed on every part of the plan...nope.  Do I suspect he and his political minions had their hands in it, of course, every administration does.
Did he say we wouldn't leave Americans behind then lie and set the conditions and timeline for an expedited withdraw...Yup
He is the Commander in Chief...not a SINGLE Person has been fired or held accountable for the loss of those 13 Marines. 

“Most successful airlift in history” Bro.

Get with the narrative.

Also the 3rd time in History we’ve used the CRAF. And don’t forget every well thought out plan involves activating the Global Reaction Brigade as a primary plan of action. That’s not State getting in over it’s head and hitting the, “F it! DOD activate!” Button because they dropped the ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, nsplayr said:

which to me is anti-democratic (small d democratic). Both parties (or any party or political group!), when being freely and fairly elected by a majority of voters, should have the ability to govern and deliver on the platforms they ran on.

We're not a democracy, dude. We're a representative republic. You're advocating against the American system. That's fine, but you're advocating against the most successful system of government in the history of humanity in favor of a historically much less successful system. Evidence and history are not on your side.

 

Of course there is somewhere that direct democracy can and often is implemented... The local level. Again, it's not a quirk of our system, it's the whole damn point. Our system was never designed for uniformity across the states, if that is almost exactly what Democrats are arguing for. And they do so as you have, without acknowledging the reality that you are arguing directly against the intended and established system of this country.

 

Reading your post, it feels like you're explaining things as though we don't understand your perspective. But your perspective is centuries old. The people who started this country did so using a system that intentionally prevented exactly what your advocating for, because they had experienced exactly how catastrophic it can be.

 

There's nothing unique about the principals of governing in 2022. What's changed in the modern world is that even smaller groups of people can exert disproportional influence on the government and thus pervert the will of majorities. And you would make that worse.

 

Put simply, your advocating for rapid change while the founders did everything in their power to put a speed limit on change. 

[mp5g]

Bring back Congressional term limits. I happen to believe that if people weren’t so invested in protecting their cash cow job that serving in Congress has become for their entire adult lives, you’d see more compromise on issues. That’s just me. But I think we all know that dude or dudette who has stuck around in a job a little too long and refuses to change with the times because, dammit, that’s what they’ve always done. 
 

Periodically hitting refresh is not a bad thing, IMO. 

[SurelySerious]

If only the founding fathers had created a mechanism in which we could continually redefine what was considered constitutional...
Also, if you think there's some sacred etched-in-stone tradition regarding balance and proportionality, I recommend you read up on the Apportionment Act(s). Here's a good place to start. I doubt the founder fathers mean for a Wyoming vote to have more weight than a California vote. Or for wild gerrymandering from anyone. But here we are. 

They definitely meant for the more populous areas to not run roughshod over the less populous. That was literally the idea.

[Waingro]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

They definitely meant for the more populous areas to not run roughshod over the less populous. That was literally the idea.

Sure, every state gets two senators. But this is about representatives. Can I take this to mean you support California having as many representatives per capita that Montana has then? 

If the founding fathers wanted a cap on representatives, why did it take until 1929 for the Apportionment Act to get signed into law?

[SurelySerious]

Sure, every state gets two senators. But this is about representatives. Can I take this to mean you support California having as many representatives per capita that Montana has then? 
If the founding fathers wanted a cap on representatives, why did it take until 1929 for the Apportionment Act to get signed into law?

Probably took us a while to figure out ~500 reps is a ton. Doubt the founders quite imagined the scale of 300M people to represent, to be quite honest. Quite the derail, but you keep on that Apportionment Crusade, bud. The PYB Thread for Constitutional Scholars is a few clicks over, though.