ii) Remove the idea of two senators per state. Instead assign each state one senator per 3 million people, rounded up. So California gets 13, Texas gets 7, Virginia 3, Missisipi 1 etc. It's absurd to have it nowadays when the senate is so powerful. Both houses should be representative of population, since they both have a defined job.
What would be the point of the senate if you did that? At that point why not just move to a unicameral system...I mean aside from the fact that either change would first require convincing the bulk of the midwest that California and New York really do have their best interests at heart.
I've heard a lot of arguments that California is a good predictor of what other states will pass into law within 5-10 years. Things like emission caps on cars, legalization of the mary-J etc.
Bankruptcy levels of debt
I didn't say everything about California was great. But you can't really talk about California's crushing debt without discussing how most of their tax moneys go to support other states.
Robman on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Joe Biden in 2010: "As long as I have served, I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decision has required 60 senators. No democracy has survived needing a supermajority."
Joe Biden in 2005: "At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it's about compromise and moderation. The nuclear option extinguishes the power of independents and moderates in the Senate. That's it, they're done. Moderates are important if you need to get to 60 votes to satisfy cloture; they are much less so if you only need 50 votes. Let's set the historical record straight. Never has the Senate provided for a certainty that 51 votes could put someone on the bench or pass legislation."
Everything is terrible when it the other side doing it to you, fucking hypocrites.
Do you not see how the two bolded statements are different? Threatening filibuster is okay on big issues; making it the defacto position upon which any vote must pass is breaking the system.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The most likely useful product of grassroots online support would be an online petition I suppose. There are a bunch of us here that have followed very closely the process of the 60-vote requirement picking apart the best parts of health care legislation...
What about a statement that outlines not only the current practical political problems with that requirement, but also makes a constitutional case using the will of the framers as an argument? And a historical demonstration of the sharp growth of its use over the last couple decades?
We wouldn't even be all alone in this. Biden has spoken on record against the 60-vote requirement.
Biden is one of the few individuals who could claim standing that rule 22 is unconstitutional. He is one of the only individuals who could bring a case against Reid, eventually to be taken to SCOTUS, to find that the supermajority requirements of the new filibuster are unconstitutional.
Of course, never in a million years would he do this.
If 40 senators want to block anybody for nomination, they have the right to do that. And the reason they have the right to do that, it`s the one bulwark against pure majoritarianism .
Also Robman, yes, I have heard people make that argument; usually they are from California.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
I understand their plight, Toronto saw the majority of our tax dollars go off to fix roads in battleground ridings in Northern Ontario while our infrastructure crumbled. Such is life.
Also, about the senate becoming a by-population vs. by state seating -- while I'm sure it's up for debate, I don't think that's the point of statehood in general. States are entities in themselves, members of a union, not just a boxed up percentage of the country's population.
In any sane country, the house that was modeled anti-democratically would be the lower of the two. And likely exist purely as a rubber stamp on the other.
Yes and No. The Canadian Senate has routinely gone against the wishes of the sitting government, despite who was in the government at the time, to temper bills and generally act as a damper on contentious issues. They're a real 'conservative' body in that they conserve the current state of the law, acting as "Sober, Second Sight".
The problem is more one of institutional philosophy, the Senate is as politically charged as the Congress in America, which means that effectively you just have two Congresses, except one grants much more power to individual members.
I think you mean the house. The house and the senate combined is refered to as "Congress". You must be one of those people from the frigid north.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I understand their plight, Toronto saw the majority of our tax dollars go off to fix roads in battleground ridings in Northern Ontario while our infrastructure crumbled. Such is life.
I'm sorry but given the perpetual lack of attention paid to Northern Ontario by Southern Ontario, you can fuck off with this comment. I'm so sorry if your four-lane highways had a few more bumps for the prospect of fixing the only reliable connecting link between the majority of communities in the northwest.
You get one filibuster per term. It may work, it may not work. Pick your issue wisely.
Or more than likely, always be saving it just incase, and then no one ever uses it, which is fine by me.
Hate to say it, but this is a piss poor idea. All it would do would be to force come extremely bad and controversial legislation to be the first thing any congress did, so as to force the other side to use their fillibuster. It would be the same as no filibuster, with the added bonus of wasting our time.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
I wonder if we'll get rid of the filibuster before or after America declares bankruptcy from a combination of health care costs, energy scarcity, failing trade deficit, increasing debt, and corporate greed
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
Alternatively, invoking the filibuster causes an immediate confidence vote in the Senate on the judgment of the Senator, and if they find their judgment lacking, they are returned to their home state for a vote of confidence by their riding.
Want to block a major bill? You'd better be doing so with the support of your electorate.
Wouldn't this just cause the senators with the most popular support to invoke the filibuster, thereby sending them back to their state and causing many expensive and pointless elections?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
When the "nuclear option" came up a few years ago, the idea seemed dangerous. Obviously the reasons for it then and now are different, as are the majority parties, but overall it might be best to modify it moderately.
A minority party shouldn't be allowed to continuously block legislation, especially since it is obvious that the current Republicans, and those that inspired this New York Times1995 editorial, have no intention of allowing the Democrats to do any sort of actual governance.
On the other hand, the Senate is given a great responsibility in vetting judicial and other nominees. I believe parties of either side should be able to filibuster nominees since a candidate's impact will be far beyond a simple up-down vote.
Actually if you read the article you'll find that the Democrats have a good reason to be allowed to block legislation, as they represent states which have the majority of the US population.
Honestly what we need is two fold.
i) The idea from the first article. Every time you block a bill, it will be harder to block it next time. Decreasing votes required to pass it by x.
ii) Remove the idea of two senators per state. Instead assign each state one senator per 3 million people, rounded up. So California gets 13, Texas gets 7, Virginia 3, Missisipi 1 etc. It's absurd to have it nowadays when the senate is so powerful. Both houses should be representative of population, since they both have a defined job.
My point was more that I don't think it would be right to allow filibuster for one side (even if they do have more of a population base) but not for the other. I do think that it should be changed, I'm just not entirely sure how would be best.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
If for the sake of argument we agree that Biden is a hypocrite, that doesn't mean the 60-vote requirement is healthy for the country or makes any sense. I say we nuke it.
If for the sake of argument we agree that Biden is a hypocrite, that doesn't mean the 60-vote requirement is healthy for the country or makes any sense. I say we nuke it.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
If for the sake of argument we agree that Biden is a hypocrite, that doesn't mean the 60-vote requirement is healthy for the country or makes any sense. I say we nuke it.
Can we keep it in place for extreme things?
Like, say, wars?
Maybe, but the legislature doesn't vote on wars as it is to begin with. We've replaced them with "military actions" or somesuch.
The way to fix the lobbying problem IMO is with public financing for candidates. The lobbyists can still talk to them, but they can't donate (nor can the people who hire them). It wouldn't fix the problem entirely but it would decrease its impact.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
No you misunderstand me in two ways:
1) The group I'm talking about would have the power to *make* law in their field of expertise. i.e. let the doctors form medical laws, the climatologists environmental, economists economic, etc.
2) If it was the AMA that was lobbying (bribing) Congress exclusively we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that for every informed, benevolent group of lobbyists in the world there are a dozen companies with much fatter checkbooks that want government to make laws that favor their business regardless of the harm it does to the people and their freedom.
Just saying "well there are good ones and there are bad ones, like the jedi and the sith, they cancel each other out" doesn't work too well when they bad ones rule by an iron checkbook.
The way to fix the lobbying problem IMO is with public financing for candidates. The lobbyists can still talk to them, but they can't donate (nor can the people who hire them). It wouldn't fix the problem entirely but it would decrease its impact.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
No you misunderstand me in two ways:
1) The group I'm talking about would have the power to *make* law in their field of expertise. i.e. let the doctors form medical laws, the climatologists environmental, economists economic, etc.
2) If it was the AMA that was lobbying (bribing) Congress exclusively we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that for every informed, benevolent group of lobbyists in the world there are a dozen companies with much fatter checkbooks that want government to make laws that favor their business regardless of the harm it does to the people and their freedom.
Just saying "well there are good ones and there are bad ones, like the jedi and the sith, they cancel each other out" doesn't work too well when they bad ones rule by an iron checkbook.
So you don't think there might be a conflict of interest have doctors make the laws that govern their own behavior? Pass bills that get rid of patient's ability to sue for malpractice? Encourage useless procedures so that people spend more money on health care and by extension, doctors' salaries?
big l on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited January 2010
If you could actually pass public financing, then lobbying couldnt be a problem since the lobbyists would have to clear all the yes votes.
So you don't think there might be a conflict of interest have doctors make the laws that govern their own behavior? Pass bills that get rid of patient's ability to sue for malpractice? Encourage useless procedures so that people spend more money on health care and by extension, doctors' salaries?
Doctors already govern their own behavior. Who do you think runs Morbidity and Mortality conferences, the NBA?
I trust Doctor's to regulate themselves ethically a hell of a lot more than I trust Congress to do it with the health insurance companies whispering in their ear like that creepy advisor from the second LoTR movie.
Scientists and Doctors have transparent, peer-reviewed systems that let the light of criticism in to burn away the infection of greed. Is it perfect? Fuck no.
But it sure as hell is better than the nothing we have right now.
So you don't think there might be a conflict of interest have doctors make the laws that govern their own behavior? Pass bills that get rid of patient's ability to sue for malpractice? Encourage useless procedures so that people spend more money on health care and by extension, doctors' salaries?
Doctors already govern their own behavior. Who do you think runs Morbidity and Mortality conferences, the NBA?
I trust Doctor's to regulate themselves ethically a hell of a lot more than I trust Congress to do it with the health insurance companies whispering in their ear like that creepy advisor from the second LoTR movie.
Scientists and Doctors have transparent, peer-reviewed systems that let the light of criticism in to burn away the infection of greed. Is it perfect? Fuck no.
But it sure as hell is better than the nothing we have right now.
Hell, Congress has a transparent, peer-reviewed system that lets the light of criticism (and the public vote) affect it. What's the difference? Nearly unlimited power given to the body and an incredibly complicated laundry list of topics to tackle.
Darkewolfe on
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
The way to fix the lobbying problem IMO is with public financing for candidates. The lobbyists can still talk to them, but they can't donate (nor can the people who hire them). It wouldn't fix the problem entirely but it would decrease its impact.
We actually have this up here in Canada (sort of: above a certain margin, the amount of vote a party receives in a national election translates into federal funding for that party at so many $/vote which also helps out smaller parties since if they just gain enough national support they start getting funding allowing more advertising, outreach, etc.), though I don't know if we outlaw lobbying contributions.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
No you misunderstand me in two ways:
1) The group I'm talking about would have the power to *make* law in their field of expertise. i.e. let the doctors form medical laws, the climatologists environmental, economists economic, etc.
2) If it was the AMA that was lobbying (bribing) Congress exclusively we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that for every informed, benevolent group of lobbyists in the world there are a dozen companies with much fatter checkbooks that want government to make laws that favor their business regardless of the harm it does to the people and their freedom.
Just saying "well there are good ones and there are bad ones, like the jedi and the sith, they cancel each other out" doesn't work too well when they bad ones rule by an iron checkbook.
Ignoring the ridiculously authoritarian nature of your suggestion, If in the last 2 years you've figured out nothing else, you had to have gathered that the 'experts' in fields such as economics know fuck all. Additionally handing such broad power to such a narrow group of individuals is insane.
Climatologists know nothing about: running the national power grid, petroleum extraction and refinement, automotive design etc. I'd much rather live with the current system than going to some sort of central planning committee run by self-righteous scientists who know fuck all outside of their fields. Exxon Mobile will keep gas in my tank, and if they write their essays on the importance of drilling wherever they are drilling on $100 bills, I still like being able to get to work.
Just looking at the targets for the Copenhagen Conference shows you that the climate scientists have no idea about the functioning of the world outside of their CO2 computer models. They somehow believed that we could generate less CO2 than we do now, while adding 4 billion people to the planet, lifting ~2.5 billion(China + India) from a 3rd world to first world standards of living, and not crater the worlds economy during the middle of a recession. I wonder if their CO2 models accounted for all the bong smoke they were generating. Putting people with such a narrow field of expertises in charge of such a broad regulatory field would be disastrous, because they know so little about most he fields they'd be regulating. Of course if the energy companies could send delegates to advise them...
tinwhiskers on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
The way to fix the lobbying problem IMO is with public financing for candidates. The lobbyists can still talk to them, but they can't donate (nor can the people who hire them). It wouldn't fix the problem entirely but it would decrease its impact.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
No you misunderstand me in two ways:
1) The group I'm talking about would have the power to *make* law in their field of expertise. i.e. let the doctors form medical laws, the climatologists environmental, economists economic, etc.
2) If it was the AMA that was lobbying (bribing) Congress exclusively we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that for every informed, benevolent group of lobbyists in the world there are a dozen companies with much fatter checkbooks that want government to make laws that favor their business regardless of the harm it does to the people and their freedom.
Just saying "well there are good ones and there are bad ones, like the jedi and the sith, they cancel each other out" doesn't work too well when they bad ones rule by an iron checkbook.
Ignoring the ridiculously authoritarian nature of your suggestion, If in the last 2 years you've figured out nothing else, you had to have gathered that the 'experts' in fields such as economics know fuck all. Additionally handing such broad power to such a narrow group of individuals is insane.
Climatologists know nothing about: running the national power grid, petroleum extraction and refinement, automotive design etc. I'd much rather live with the current system than going to some sort of central planning committee run by self-righteous scientists who know fuck all outside of their fields. Exxon Mobile will keep gas in my tank, and if they write their essays on the importance of drilling wherever they are drilling on $100 bills, I still like being able to get to work.
Just looking at the targets for the Copenhagen Conference shows you that the climate scientists have no idea about the functioning of the world outside of their CO2 computer models. They somehow believed that we could generate less CO2 than we do now, while adding 4 billion people to the planet, lifting ~2.5 billion(China + India) from a 3rd world to first world standards of living, and not crater the worlds economy during the middle of a recession. I wonder if their CO2 models accounted for all the bong smoke they were generating. Putting people with such a narrow field of expertises in charge of such a broad regulatory field would be disastrous, because they know so little about most he fields they'd be regulating. Of course if the energy companies could send delegates to advise them...
Yes you're quite right, agencies like Environment Canada, The Environmental Protection Agency (USA) and a whole host of other government agencies staffed by Environmental Scientists and Engineers don't write all the motherfucking laws and acts that regulate the environment.
And the very instant in the future that the GOP gains 51 Senate votes, they pass legislation saying that the Democratic Party must be referred to as the Stinky Poopy Head Commie Party in all official publications in perpetuity.
I trust Doctor's to regulate themselves ethically a hell of a lot more than I trust Congress to do it with the health insurance companies whispering in their ear like that creepy advisor from the second LoTR movie.
Scientists and Doctors have transparent, peer-reviewed systems that let the light of criticism in to burn away the infection of greed. Is it perfect? Fuck no.
Hahaha. No, self regulation is such a farce in the realm of Doctors I don't know how you can even make a suggestion like this with a straight face. Here we go;
Just 5.1 percent of doctors account for 54.2 percent of the malpractice payouts, according to data from the National Practitioner Data Bank. Of the 35,000 doctors who have had two or more malpractice payouts since 1990, only 7.6 percent of them have been disciplined. And only 13 percent of doctors with five medical malpractice payouts have been disciplined.
That is appalling and should pretty much be the end of any discussion on how self-regulation burns away greed or self interest.
While we're hating transparently evil aspects of the American government can I toss something onto the list?
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
No you misunderstand me in two ways:
1) The group I'm talking about would have the power to *make* law in their field of expertise. i.e. let the doctors form medical laws, the climatologists environmental, economists economic, etc.
2) If it was the AMA that was lobbying (bribing) Congress exclusively we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that for every informed, benevolent group of lobbyists in the world there are a dozen companies with much fatter checkbooks that want government to make laws that favor their business regardless of the harm it does to the people and their freedom.
Just saying "well there are good ones and there are bad ones, like the jedi and the sith, they cancel each other out" doesn't work too well when they bad ones rule by an iron checkbook.
Ignoring the ridiculously authoritarian nature of your suggestion, If in the last 2 years you've figured out nothing else, you had to have gathered that the 'experts' in fields such as economics know fuck all. Additionally handing such broad power to such a narrow group of individuals is insane.
Climatologists know nothing about: running the national power grid, petroleum extraction and refinement, automotive design etc. I'd much rather live with the current system than going to some sort of central planning committee run by self-righteous scientists who know fuck all outside of their fields. Exxon Mobile will keep gas in my tank, and if they write their essays on the importance of drilling wherever they are drilling on $100 bills, I still like being able to get to work.
Just looking at the targets for the Copenhagen Conference shows you that the climate scientists have no idea about the functioning of the world outside of their CO2 computer models. They somehow believed that we could generate less CO2 than we do now, while adding 4 billion people to the planet, lifting ~2.5 billion(China + India) from a 3rd world to first world standards of living, and not crater the worlds economy during the middle of a recession. I wonder if their CO2 models accounted for all the bong smoke they were generating. Putting people with such a narrow field of expertises in charge of such a broad regulatory field would be disastrous, because they know so little about most he fields they'd be regulating. Of course if the energy companies could send delegates to advise them...
Yes you're quite right, agencies like Environment Canada, The Environmental Protection Agency (USA) and a whole host of other government agencies staffed by Environmental Scientists and Engineers don't write all the motherfucking laws and acts that regulate the environment.
And they are granted that power by who? Who decides whom is in charge of such agencies? They aren't a self-selected group of autocrats, their authority to do so is granted to them, and limited by congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA#Related_legislation
I think everyone else has adequately expressed why your idea jumps the shark SparserLogic. It is silly in the extreme. Also, whether or not you believe in classic liberalism, the fact is that the vast majority of people in the USA and in the US Government do believe in those tenets. Suggesting that governance should change magically instead of talking about changing it within the context of this thread is also silly.
edit:spelling :P
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
Instead of trying to kill the senate, why not try to give the house some more power to balance it out?
Like maybe if someone filibusters a bill in the senate, a simple majority vote in the house could kill the filibuster and let the bill continue. Or other idea's of that nature.
Because it's not just the filibuster that is unbelievably fucked up about the Senate. The seniority system, the representation issues, fucking anonymous holds. Gah.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I apologize if this isn't really core to the topic at hand, but one thing I've wondered about over the past few years.. Nearly every time I hear of a poll concerning congress' approval rating, it's ~20% give or take. This appears to imply that it can't just be righties that are disapproving, and that there are plenty of democrat voters who are upset. I know lots of the reasons the right in this country would disapprove, and a lot of those reasons stem chiefly from all the Ds next to congressmen's names, but also basically supporting just the opposite of what the left majority believes in and acts upon. The vast majority of peeps on this forum are exceptionally left of the center from what I've read -- just out of curiosity, if you're a part of that 80% who disapprove, what chiefly are you tiffed about?
The only thing I've heard from the forum and some friends of mine (when we do talk about politics, which I avoid because nothing pleasant ever comes from it, plus I'm not terribly well read/informed on the issues, which makes me a poor candidate for having strong opinions ) is annoyance/contempt for those members of congress that are republican. Does that constitute giving congress a bad grade in itself?
Congressional (as a whole) approval ratings are worthless, since individual members are usually highly regarded at home. The only really good measure on the popularity of a party are the self-identification metrics.
Congressional (as a whole) approval ratings are worthless, since individual members are usually highly regarded at home. The only really good measure on the popularity of a party are the self-identification metrics.
That's why we need to scrap the traditional opinion of Congress poll with what I like to call the "Joe Congresscritter" poll - which would be a sabremetric composite of the popularity rating of every sitting congresscritter. The result would be the support that the average federal legislator has from their constituency, which would be a much better metric of exactly how the nation actually feels about Congress.
Posts
I didn't say everything about California was great. But you can't really talk about California's crushing debt without discussing how most of their tax moneys go to support other states.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Also Robman, yes, I have heard people make that argument; usually they are from California.
- John Stuart Mill
I think you mean the house. The house and the senate combined is refered to as "Congress". You must be one of those people from the frigid north.
but they're listening to every word I say
I'm sorry but given the perpetual lack of attention paid to Northern Ontario by Southern Ontario, you can fuck off with this comment. I'm so sorry if your four-lane highways had a few more bumps for the prospect of fixing the only reliable connecting link between the majority of communities in the northwest.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Hate to say it, but this is a piss poor idea. All it would do would be to force come extremely bad and controversial legislation to be the first thing any congress did, so as to force the other side to use their fillibuster. It would be the same as no filibuster, with the added bonus of wasting our time.
but they're listening to every word I say
"Lobbying"
Someone I'm related to (via marriage) spent many years as a Lobbyist. I spent a while asking her how she could consider it anything other than organized bribery.
The only real answer I got out of her was "Senators are stupid and they need lobbyists who are experts to explain how to vote"
Simplified (only slightly) but shockingly direct.
The question is obvious. How long as we going to pretend our republic is anything but a sham? We're "ruled" by people that are elected via beauty pageants so they can go to DC and do what their party tells them. The party being told what to do by the lobbyists who give them money, that is.
Why do we have a collection of airheads voting on Health Care Reform instead of a (nonpartisan) panel of the best 200 medical and economic minds in the country?
Why don't we choose rule by the smart over rule by the dumb? Because the dumb wouldn't agree to that? Why do the dumb have a voice? They are, by definition, dumb.
Wouldn't this just cause the senators with the most popular support to invoke the filibuster, thereby sending them back to their state and causing many expensive and pointless elections?
but they're listening to every word I say
I think you fail to understand the basic tenents of classic liberalism that this country is founded on. What you are talking about would be a radical change in government and wholesale shift from democracy. The idea is that people, if presented with different sides of an argument, are rational enough to think about it and pick which side is best. Now most people don't have the time to do this, so we are to elect people that we think can. Lobbyists are people that go forth and present these arguments to the people we elect to weigh them.
As an alternative, what would you suggest? Who is to pick these "experts". Are we to go to a Authoritarian rule?
but they're listening to every word I say
My point was more that I don't think it would be right to allow filibuster for one side (even if they do have more of a population base) but not for the other. I do think that it should be changed, I'm just not entirely sure how would be best.
Ignoring the assumption that I'm liberal for a moment...
We don't need Authoritarian rule to set up what I'm describing. We already have government agencies that doing an amazing job at hiring experts in the fields they regulate and utilizing their expertise to keep all of our drinking water/child's toys/roads/cities/etc safe.
To continue the Health Care Reform example, do you watch Futurama? If so, did you see the episode where they tackled Global Warming? Did it ever occur to you how strange it was that the President (Nixon, lol) held an open call to all of the worlds top scientists to come and work together to figure out a solution?
That's what I'm talking about. The scientific community knows who the top scientists are the same way the medical community knows who the best medical practitioners are. They review papers, teach classes, do their jobs and gain respect.
Can we keep it in place for extreme things?
Like, say, wars?
Yes but now lets say the president can't rule by decree, and needs congress to write the laws. Maybe the groups(say the AMA) formed by such people could send a handful of representatives, to inform congress...
Maybe, but the legislature doesn't vote on wars as it is to begin with. We've replaced them with "military actions" or somesuch.
No you misunderstand me in two ways:
1) The group I'm talking about would have the power to *make* law in their field of expertise. i.e. let the doctors form medical laws, the climatologists environmental, economists economic, etc.
2) If it was the AMA that was lobbying (bribing) Congress exclusively we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is that for every informed, benevolent group of lobbyists in the world there are a dozen companies with much fatter checkbooks that want government to make laws that favor their business regardless of the harm it does to the people and their freedom.
Just saying "well there are good ones and there are bad ones, like the jedi and the sith, they cancel each other out" doesn't work too well when they bad ones rule by an iron checkbook.
So you don't think there might be a conflict of interest have doctors make the laws that govern their own behavior? Pass bills that get rid of patient's ability to sue for malpractice? Encourage useless procedures so that people spend more money on health care and by extension, doctors' salaries?
Doctors already govern their own behavior. Who do you think runs Morbidity and Mortality conferences, the NBA?
I trust Doctor's to regulate themselves ethically a hell of a lot more than I trust Congress to do it with the health insurance companies whispering in their ear like that creepy advisor from the second LoTR movie.
Scientists and Doctors have transparent, peer-reviewed systems that let the light of criticism in to burn away the infection of greed. Is it perfect? Fuck no.
But it sure as hell is better than the nothing we have right now.
Hell, Congress has a transparent, peer-reviewed system that lets the light of criticism (and the public vote) affect it. What's the difference? Nearly unlimited power given to the body and an incredibly complicated laundry list of topics to tackle.
We actually have this up here in Canada (sort of: above a certain margin, the amount of vote a party receives in a national election translates into federal funding for that party at so many $/vote which also helps out smaller parties since if they just gain enough national support they start getting funding allowing more advertising, outreach, etc.), though I don't know if we outlaw lobbying contributions.
Lobbying still happens mind you.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Ignoring the ridiculously authoritarian nature of your suggestion, If in the last 2 years you've figured out nothing else, you had to have gathered that the 'experts' in fields such as economics know fuck all. Additionally handing such broad power to such a narrow group of individuals is insane.
Climatologists know nothing about: running the national power grid, petroleum extraction and refinement, automotive design etc. I'd much rather live with the current system than going to some sort of central planning committee run by self-righteous scientists who know fuck all outside of their fields. Exxon Mobile will keep gas in my tank, and if they write their essays on the importance of drilling wherever they are drilling on $100 bills, I still like being able to get to work.
Just looking at the targets for the Copenhagen Conference shows you that the climate scientists have no idea about the functioning of the world outside of their CO2 computer models. They somehow believed that we could generate less CO2 than we do now, while adding 4 billion people to the planet, lifting ~2.5 billion(China + India) from a 3rd world to first world standards of living, and not crater the worlds economy during the middle of a recession. I wonder if their CO2 models accounted for all the bong smoke they were generating. Putting people with such a narrow field of expertises in charge of such a broad regulatory field would be disastrous, because they know so little about most he fields they'd be regulating. Of course if the energy companies could send delegates to advise them...
Yes you're quite right, agencies like Environment Canada, The Environmental Protection Agency (USA) and a whole host of other government agencies staffed by Environmental Scientists and Engineers don't write all the motherfucking laws and acts that regulate the environment.
Also it will be illegal for gays to get abortions
Hahaha. No, self regulation is such a farce in the realm of Doctors I don't know how you can even make a suggestion like this with a straight face. Here we go;
That is appalling and should pretty much be the end of any discussion on how self-regulation burns away greed or self interest.
And they are granted that power by who? Who decides whom is in charge of such agencies? They aren't a self-selected group of autocrats, their authority to do so is granted to them, and limited by congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA#Related_legislation
edit:spelling :P
but they're listening to every word I say
Tenant: someone living, say, in an apartment building.
you're quite right.
but they're listening to every word I say
The Senate needs to go.
Like maybe if someone filibusters a bill in the senate, a simple majority vote in the house could kill the filibuster and let the bill continue. Or other idea's of that nature.
The only thing I've heard from the forum and some friends of mine (when we do talk about politics, which I avoid because nothing pleasant ever comes from it, plus I'm not terribly well read/informed on the issues, which makes me a poor candidate for having strong opinions
That's why we need to scrap the traditional opinion of Congress poll with what I like to call the "Joe Congresscritter" poll - which would be a sabremetric composite of the popularity rating of every sitting congresscritter. The result would be the support that the average federal legislator has from their constituency, which would be a much better metric of exactly how the nation actually feels about Congress.