The filibuster has gotten easier to use not harder to use over the years. While it is the case that the filibuster requires less votes to break it is also the case that in the past the filibuster required that the party responsible partake in much more effort.
Sure you only need 60 votes to break it now but now you don't even have to keep standing while you're holding up business
I agree with that. Sorry if I posted something that appeared to say or did say otherwise. That meaning wasn't my intent.
The problem with the Senate is not the Senate. It's the money.
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
The problem with the Senate is not the Senate. It's the money.
Elaborate?
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
Other than that: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Watering down bills is a great way to use legislative chokepoints to benefit narrow interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes for bloated, inefficient government, and it makes for a lot of crony capitalism. It ruins the government and it ruins markets.
What do you mean "not a bug, it's a feature"? Elaborate?
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It's well-known that the Founding Fathers designed the Senate to curb the enthusiasms of the House. It's meant to be slow. That's the feature, and I think there's merit to that.
But there is a point--and we passed it about the 40th time they tried to repeal Obamacare--when Congress is no longer functioning, and the feature has become a breaking point for the system. Checks and balances, yes, but on a system that is supposed to get things done. When it doesn't, that's less of a bug and more of a cataclysmic failure.
It's well-known that the Founding Fathers designed the Senate to curb the enthusiasms of the House. It's meant to be slow. That's the feature, and I think there's merit to that.
But there is a point--and we passed it about the 40th time they tried to repeal Obamacare--when Congress is no longer functioning, and the feature has become a breaking point for the system. Checks and balances, yes, but on a system that is supposed to get things done. When it doesn't, that's less of a bug and more of a cataclysmic failure.
I'd argue that Obamacare, and gun control, and some other contentious legislation is probably still fair game to get chewed up by the Senate (though hey, it looks like they might pass that online sales tax legislation).
But when they can't do simple, necessary shit like confirm judges and other appointees? Yes, it's broken.
I'd argue the two biggest problems with the Senate are the filibuster and money's corrupting influence.
I'm wondering how much longer it will go before someone says fuck it on the filibuster. I would not be surprised to see that go down in flames soon, probably not while Reid runs the Senate though. I really could see someone state that the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone in the Senate the right to filibuster and anyone that loves doing that can go fuck themselves. If it ever happens, that will be fun to watch because SCOTUS might say "fuck that shit, you guys work it out!"
Money is an issue. Sadly, the Roberts Court has fucked us here. Good luck getting an amendment for public financing. I think that would help some of the issues, particularly if someone had a reasonable provision for what counts as being eligible for public financing. The rest of the issue is a problem, I'm not sure there is much that can be done here, maybe make sure former elected representatives can't be a paid lobbyist for a certain number of years.
It's suppose to be a means to slow things done. I'm okay with this to a degree, 2010 certainly highlights why we need such a setup because the tea party is toxic. I could get the idea of a PR system, where 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every 2 years and they still have 6 year terms.
The problem with the Senate is not the Senate. It's the money.
Elaborate?
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
Other than that: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Watering down bills is a great way to use legislative chokepoints to benefit narrow interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes for bloated, inefficient government, and it makes for a lot of crony capitalism. It ruins the government and it ruins markets.
What do you mean "not a bug, it's a feature"? Elaborate?
The feature is that since states are wise and closer to their constituents while congress is in the thrall of Evil DC and the federal powers (which are big and scary and think they know everything, like about mercury standards and how to have non-racist elections), it is important to heavily subsidize the power of rural and sparse states so their wisdom and important interests aren't swamped by all those dumb city voters.
For example, the recent record in obstructed appointments, all the abortion bills and complete lack of job bills since 2010? Yeah, that's all "money". That's not how it's supposed to work, and the fact that the current system is being exploited by yokels, bigots and maniacs beholden only to corndog-eating bluehairs is because of those lobbyists with their "money", not because the system is a farce.
No, the feature is that tiny populations in the middle of nowhere get to block whatever they want because of some lines drawn on a map and the decisions of people who died centuries ago
Everybody always points out that the senate's designed function was to slow the process of turning the popular will into policy, but fails to ever explain why this is actually something that is desirable.
The problem is the senate. The problem is exacerbated by the reality of campaign finance, but it was a problem long before mass media created the current cost of campaigns.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Everybody always points out that the senate's designed function was to slow the process of turning the popular will into policy, but fails to ever explain why this is actually something that is desirable.
Except the Senate doesn't stop direct democracy, it stops the functioning of representative democracy, so your argument doesn't make sense.
EDIT: Basically, nothing the Senate does actually touches on the issues of direct democracy. It's just about varying ways you conduct representative democracy.
Everybody always points out that the senate's designed function was to slow the process of turning the popular will into policy, but fails to ever explain why this is actually something that is desirable.
The problem is the senate. The problem is exacerbated by the reality of campaign finance, but it was a problem long before mass media created the current cost of campaigns.
Because the popular will is how we get shit like California Proposition 13.
The problem with the Senate is not the Senate. It's the money.
Elaborate?
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
Other than that: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Watering down bills is a great way to use legislative chokepoints to benefit narrow interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes for bloated, inefficient government, and it makes for a lot of crony capitalism. It ruins the government and it ruins markets.
What do you mean "not a bug, it's a feature"? Elaborate?
The problem isn't with the structure, it's with the incentives of the politicians to represent narrow special interests and deliver pork, and in the case of judicial nominations with the poisonously adversarial nature of the nomination process since, oh probably since Robert Bork.
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority. Otherwise, time and deliberation aren't inherently bad. This will delay or derail things I'd like to see happen, in the future, but I'm OK with this. We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition. A more 'efficient' Senate would have passed a shittier bill with no chance in the House, one good only as a wedge to further increase partisanship on both sides.
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority.
What this actually means is "I would prefer no meaningful legislation was ever passed."
We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition.
No, you're getting a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade for Latino votes to become a target worth going after.
Everybody always points out that the senate's designed function was to slow the process of turning the popular will into policy, but fails to ever explain why this is actually something that is desirable.
The problem is the senate. The problem is exacerbated by the reality of campaign finance, but it was a problem long before mass media created the current cost of campaigns.
Because the popular will is how we get shit like California Proposition 13.
Popular will is terrible, except when it isn't.
When a mass shooting happens, and 90% of people want some new gun control measure, it's the will of the people, and it's the mean old Senate keeping it from happening. When it's been a few years since one, and that drops to about 50%, it's still the will of the people. And if it sits at 45%? Well, it's still common sense regulation that we need to be a better society, will of the people be damned.
When a majority support something like DOMA, it's tyrrany of the majority. When that popular opinion turns, suddenly we have to listen to the will of the people.
The people often want terrible things. Whether you're conservative or liberal, because the people are basically idiots who are easily led from point to point. Popular will is exactly how we get shit like DOMA, and the Iraq War for that matter. Of course, the Senate didn't stop those. So that makes me wonder, what has the Senate done in favor of liberals? Like, what were Democrats filibustering back during the Bush administration? I know they used it less, blah blah blah, but sure they must have blocked some dumb shit other than judicial nominations? What was it?
Also, I agree with spool in theory. It seems to fail in practice, though.
At the same time, I disagree with this notion that if only we could get rid of the Senate, and take away Wyoming's power, we'd be the country of rainbows, kittens, responsible socialism, and free blowjobs for all.
In response to a slow process not being desirable. 2010 says high, imagine how much worse off the US would have been if we didn't have:
A) The Senate, but had just the House.
or
We had Senate but we didn't have it setup so that it would be less susceptible to stupid passions. One such way that safeguard could be eroded is having all the seats up at once.
I don't agree with some of spool's political views but agree with him that fast isn't always better. We do need a legislative branch of the government has to be slower by default and is more likely to keep knowledgeable people around than the house. Someone to keep the country from imploding in the event that a bunch of the crazies get elected. Senate doesn't need to go, just need to fix the money issue, kill or fix the filibuster and I do think this country needs to move towards a PR system (that could be done without dissolving the Senate: 6 year terms with 1/3 up for vote every two years).
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority.
What this actually means is "I would prefer no meaningful legislation was ever passed."
No, it means exactly what I said. I like meaningful legislation - I just don't often like your meaningful legislation. The same is almost certainly true for you. Trying to frame this discussion of the Senate's role as one where the Good and True Forces of Progress For The Betterment of All are battling against The Evil Bastards Who Never Want Anything to Get Better is ridiculous and false. If we're going to talk about The Senate as a legislative body, we have to talk about what happens when a supposedly more 'efficient' body that can Get Things Done starts getting things done that progressives hate.
Otherwise, this is just a thread about how bad people think the current Senate is, dressed up in the trappings of a conversation about structure.
We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition.
No, you're getting a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade for Latino votes to become a target worth going after.
No, we're getting a pretty good immigration bill because, now that Latino votes are a target, Senators on the right have some incentive to soften their positions in response to a change in the voting population. In other words, the Senate in this case is working correctly, as designed.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
The Senate is designed to preserve ignorance and racism until popular will makes those positions untenable?
The problem with the Senate is not the Senate. It's the money.
Elaborate?
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
Other than that: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Watering down bills is a great way to use legislative chokepoints to benefit narrow interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes for bloated, inefficient government, and it makes for a lot of crony capitalism. It ruins the government and it ruins markets.
What do you mean "not a bug, it's a feature"? Elaborate?
The problem isn't with the structure, it's with the incentives of the politicians to represent narrow special interests and deliver pork, and in the case of judicial nominations with the poisonously adversarial nature of the nomination process since, oh probably since Robert Bork.
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority. Otherwise, time and deliberation aren't inherently bad. This will delay or derail things I'd like to see happen, in the future, but I'm OK with this. We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition. A more 'efficient' Senate would have passed a shittier bill with no chance in the House, one good only as a wedge to further increase partisanship on both sides.
So you're saying that it was a bad thing that a man who was hired to kill an investigation into a sitting President was raked over the coals?
I'm saying that sentences beginning with "So you're saying that..." never, ever, ever accurately summarize the statement they reference, nor do they ever, ever tease out any useful or interesting implications.
House of Reps:
smallest pop district: 526K (RI-1)
largest pop district: 994K (MT)
Average: 710K
So its far from a perfect 1-1 ratio in the House, but its as close as could be while allowing each state to have at least 1. Rhode Island gets 2, Montanta just misses the cut.
Senate:
smallest pop district (state divided by 2) ~288,000 (Wyoming)
Largest pop district: ~19,000,000
Average 3.1 million
Most of the US system is built around checks and balances. The Senate is intended to slow rampant swings in public sentiment and take a more measured approach. As much as we deride it now, this actually is important. Representing a largely population with only 1/3 in danger of being voted out of office every two years, they are intended to be more moderate and patient than their peers in the House. During the Bush Presidency some of the worst abuses were prevented due to a Senate that could theoretically block Republican agendas. In practice the Senate has largely not avoided public sentiment that strongly, and at times has taken the lead when issues are unpopular among large segments of the people. Most Civil Rights legislation (from the 14th and 15th to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act) have passed the Senate more readily than the House.
However, the Constitution doesn't explicitly call for the filibuster. In a situation where all act in good faith its not a problem. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Republican Senators are no longer moderates, but nearly as extreme as their House counterparts as conservative states become more uniform and unyielding in their ideology. Democratic majority states tend to be larger and there hasn't yet been nearly as big a swing on the other side, but Senators like Elizabeth Warren suggest its a possibility.
The filibuster allows a group of 41 Senators to hijack the agenda of the Senate. The 20 lowest population states plus 1/2 of the next state (CT) means that in theory under 12% of the US population's representatives can prevent any bill from becoming law. The 20 Senators of the most populous states represent a majority of the US population (53%). All Senators represent 98% of the US population (DC + territories). The 20 most populous states represent 70-75% of the population.
This has been a structural issues from the start. And until recent it has worked. So I would suggest the problem is more specific than structural.
The source of the problem:
-The Senators are the biggest problem. Bad actors make problems.
-The Rules of the Senate are the next biggest problem. They assume good faith Senators.
-The Senate itself is designed to be undemocratic, so a minority can elect those bad actors and prevent the rules from being rewritten.
Unfortunately, Harry Reid declined to change #2 at the start of the session.
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority.
What this actually means is "I would prefer no meaningful legislation was ever passed."
No, it means exactly what I said. I like meaningful legislation - I just don't often like your meaningful legislation. The same is almost certainly true for you. Trying to frame this discussion of the Senate's role as one where the Good and True Forces of Progress For The Betterment of All are battling against The Evil Bastards Who Never Want Anything to Get Better is ridiculous and false. If we're going to talk about The Senate as a legislative body, we have to talk about what happens when a supposedly more 'efficient' body that can Get Things Done starts getting things done that progressives hate.
1): I'm really not much of a progressive
2): "Near-unanimous," in my mind, means like 85 votes, which means nothing gets done
We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition.
No, you're getting a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade for Latino votes to become a target worth going after.
No, we're getting a pretty good immigration bill because, now that Latino votes are a target, Senators on the right have some incentive to soften their positions in response to a change in the voting population.
I'm saying that sentences beginning with "So you're saying that..." never, ever, ever accurately summarize the statement they reference, nor do they ever, ever tease out any useful or interesting implications.
And I'm pointing out that Bork's hearing was adversarial less because of partisanship, and more because he was the triggerman for the Saturday Night Massacre.
I'm saying that sentences beginning with "So you're saying that..." never, ever, ever accurately summarize the statement they reference, nor do they ever, ever tease out any useful or interesting implications.
And I'm pointing out that Bork's hearing was adversarial less because of partisanship, and more because he was the triggerman for the Saturday Night Massacre.
Was that even brought up during his confirmation? The guy was subject to a vicious character assassination and the back-and-forth hasn't let up since.
I'm saying that sentences beginning with "So you're saying that..." never, ever, ever accurately summarize the statement they reference, nor do they ever, ever tease out any useful or interesting implications.
And I'm pointing out that Bork's hearing was adversarial less because of partisanship, and more because he was the triggerman for the Saturday Night Massacre.
Was that even brought up during his confirmation? The guy was subject to a vicious character assassination and the back-and-forth hasn't let up since.
When you actively work to undermine the rule of law, I would argue that you have no character to assassinate.
The problem with the Senate is not the Senate. It's the money.
Elaborate?
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
Other than that: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Watering down bills is a great way to use legislative chokepoints to benefit narrow interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes for bloated, inefficient government, and it makes for a lot of crony capitalism. It ruins the government and it ruins markets.
What do you mean "not a bug, it's a feature"? Elaborate?
The problem isn't with the structure, it's with the incentives of the politicians to represent narrow special interests and deliver pork, and in the case of judicial nominations with the poisonously adversarial nature of the nomination process since, oh probably since Robert Bork.
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority. Otherwise, time and deliberation aren't inherently bad. This will delay or derail things I'd like to see happen, in the future, but I'm OK with this. We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition. A more 'efficient' Senate would have passed a shittier bill with no chance in the House, one good only as a wedge to further increase partisanship on both sides.
Where do politicians get their incentives from, if not from the structure? Carving up bills to hand off to special interests is enabled by the Senate structure, and the carving and parceling out of a bill is how a broad coalition is made. It's not clear that anything is gained from this process, except for concessions to moderate Senators and the narrow interests or states they represent.
Your second paragraph is straight status quo bias. It benefits incumbents and people who have manipulated the system in the past at the expense of any new entrants, to politics, to markets. It encourages cronyism and entrenches cronyism.
The other problem is that the filibuster undermines democratic accountability: what you want is for election winners to be held responsible for the results, but to do that you can’t let the losers play a major role in shaping policy. Similarly, you should want candidates to be held responsible for their ideas, not to embrace policies with a kind of wink-wink you’ll never get 60 votes for that sub rosa understanding that it’s not meant to be taken seriously.
That's one of the few good things about democracies: You can hold people responsible! The filibuster undermines that.
Honestly, I would say that a lower house based on gerrymandered districts with literally a 90-95% reelection rate, which encourages MCs to veer as far right or left as possible, is more to blame than the supermajoritiarian upper house.
EDIT: And with this gun control vote this week, it's important to remember that it was basically irrelevant how the Senate voted, because afaik it was DOA in the House anyway.
Hamurabi on
+2
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
Ok strictly there is not a reason such a model would predict that senators would leave after one term. Here is an example using a strict contract rather than implied.
Suppose that I were to pay you a sum for every positive post you made about me. You would get this sum (properly increased so as to compensate for time discounting. IE i hold the money and pay you interest on it payable at collection) at the end of your posting such that you could never post anything ever again.
Would you post one thing and then never post again? Or would you post a lot of stuff over many months or years and then collect?
The model that has senators as a revolving door works in the same way; if they made only one vote and then started lobbying their pay would be very low. But if they were a senator for a very long time their pay would be very high. The amount of time people worked would of course be different but we could predict that the more they cared about money the longer they would work in the senate all other things equal.
the whole set up of your argument is, on the face of it, ridiculous.
"persons become senators to realize financial gain at some future date by kowtowing to lobbyists."
or
"the reason that the senate does not operate optimally is senators hope to realize financial gain at some future date by kowtowing to lobbyists"
contra
"senators are beholden to lobbyists for campaign contributions to acquire, maintain and defend their current positions as senators"
What would such a world look like?
Well it would look like a world in which a large number of senators leave the senate to become lobbyists. One would think that a significant portion would leave the senate to hop on the money train, before they turned say 75.
Instead we live in a world where senators only leave the senate when they are forced out, or are so old that they really do have a plausible desire to spend more time with their family (before they die of old age).
The average age of freshmen senators is something like 51. The average age of retirement from the senate is 75.
Your contention is that the desire for future wealth, in the darkest twilight of ones years is a stronger incentive to act than the desire to continue to be a senator and amass the fortune it takes to remain a senator in the form of campaign contributions. That contention is ridiculous.
Re: gerrymandering
You're confusing "gerrymandering is effective at capturing seats" and "gerrymandering is causing political operatives to be more radical". Certainly it is true that gerrymandering can make it easier for a radical to enter the legislature but again this is not the same thing. Part of the reason it is not the same thing is that gerrymandering requires an exchange. In order to push a district to an even more radical candidate the district must shed those on the other side of the political spectrum into another district and so make those or that district less radical. All things equal, if you're closer to the center its easier to gerrymander a district to vote you in.
In addition to this exchange issue, gerrymandering should be able to be used just as effectively by the non radical. This forces us to ask the question "why are radicals better at gerrymandering". Maybe it's true, I don't know, but the question is not so simple as you're making it out to be. To be succinct as to the cause of this confusion, i think you're conflating the fact that Republicans seem to be better at gerrymandering and the fact that Republicans are radical.
In today's political climate it may be hard to disentangle those issues however, there exists a much better answer. Republicans are more spread out this makes it easier to draw contiguous maps which snip off democrats without diluting the final median voter significantly. This is likely tangential to the issue of why republicans are so radical now.
Edit: posted on a phone will correct auto correct when I am home
edit 2: Done, also please stop being a Goose.
Substantial Edit:
The links you provide make no such argument as you're claiming and the one from Politico actually reinforces my point.
The Republican party has a primary problem in that Republicans who are too conservative for their districts are running in the primary, winning, and then costing the Republicans seats (Politico identifies 5 specifically iirc) because they can't win the district. Why can't they win the district? A: Because the district was gerrymandered for someone who was less radical
Seriously this is some Tortoise and Achilles stuff here. Either you've been paying attention for the last two years or you haven't. I'm not going to catch you up. I suggest you do a thorough litterateur review and join the cool kids.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Honestly, I would say that a lower house based on gerrymandered districts with literally a 90-95% reelection rate, which encourages MCs to veer as far right or left as possible, is more to blame than the supermajoritiarian upper house.
EDIT: And with this gun control vote this week, it's important to remember that it was basically irrelevant how the Senate voted, because afaik it was DOA in the House anyway.
As a non-american, this would largely be my opinion as well.
The purpose of the Senate is to allow representation of political sovereign entities who, by entering the union, surrendered nontrivial portions of that sovereignty to a common government. They should represent the States, and while direct election of them is A Thing You Have, it has very little to do with their indended purpose, as do the population figures in the states they represent - because they are not representatives for the American citizens, they are representatives for a State. Arguing that senators representing a small portion of the population can wield legislative majority isn't really relevant, because that's not who they're supposed to represent.
"Well, that's not very democratic". And that's where the House of Representatives enter, their purpose is to represent the citizenry proportionally, to give the majority of the electorate a voice in government. Yet, because of districting, they do not. Togheter with the way you elect the executive, you can have scenario where no branch of your government represents the majority will of the people.
Which is fucking retarded. But the problem there is not the Senate, the problem there is that the insitution supposed to assure a majority representation in government does not do so.
The filibuster (in the senate) is stupid because it affords a minority of States too much power. Efficiency in the regulatory process is always desireable, whether expediency is is another question.
Ok so why does the revolving door exist then? Why are lobbyists paying if they don't get anything for it? (Besides some 75 year old man who doesn't want to work as you say)
Former politicians get hired as lobbyists for their connections. What makes the revolving door so damaging right now is that it's adding someone to the mix, who can claim others in Congress owe them favors. The current people in Congress also have to spend way too much time fundraising to defend their seat if they wish to get re-elected.
Public financing would solve some of this. Also any time they save not fundraising could be devoted towards writing bills, learning about a pressing issue or increasing communication with average citizens.
At a lengthy enough time, that if a former politician gets hired as a lobbyist, they'll have few colleagues left to attempt to guilt trip. Those remain colleagues may also feel less inclined to be generous with favors since they don't need campaign money, have time to write bills and did plenty without that person's aid. (Note I use paid, to get around the issue that some asshole will try to claim their 1st Amendment right is be violated if one tries to lock them out completely).
The biggest problem with the senate from where I am standing is that the job is far too lucrative. Too much power, too much influence, too much job security, too high pay(though I can argue for making pay higher too, it's weird), too much other money, too much potential for future money.
If all senators could be Ted Kennedy, I might feel differently, but as it is, I agree with OP that the senate is the worst. Le puke.
I've always though that government jobs should all pay the same. Soldier, postman, senator. Pay them the same.
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but I think it would make things a little less greed based.
It's a pretty terrible idea, really.
A soldier and a postman don't do nearly the same jobs, and their jobs don't come with nearly the same risk.
For example.
As well, paying Senators less than we do now only further incentivizes taking lobbyist money and cutting sweetheart deals.
So penalize them for accepting lobbyist money. There's only 100 of these guys, audit their taxes every fucking year.
Posts
I agree with that. Sorry if I posted something that appeared to say or did say otherwise. That meaning wasn't my intent.
Watering down bills is a great thing when you disagree with them.
I would like the Senate to be a little bit more willing to act, mostly in the manner of judicial nominations, but I would also like the parties to both stop treating the federal bench like the main strategy in their culture war long game.
Other than that: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Elaborate?
Watering down bills is a great way to use legislative chokepoints to benefit narrow interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes for bloated, inefficient government, and it makes for a lot of crony capitalism. It ruins the government and it ruins markets.
What do you mean "not a bug, it's a feature"? Elaborate?
But there is a point--and we passed it about the 40th time they tried to repeal Obamacare--when Congress is no longer functioning, and the feature has become a breaking point for the system. Checks and balances, yes, but on a system that is supposed to get things done. When it doesn't, that's less of a bug and more of a cataclysmic failure.
I'd argue that Obamacare, and gun control, and some other contentious legislation is probably still fair game to get chewed up by the Senate (though hey, it looks like they might pass that online sales tax legislation).
But when they can't do simple, necessary shit like confirm judges and other appointees? Yes, it's broken.
I'm wondering how much longer it will go before someone says fuck it on the filibuster. I would not be surprised to see that go down in flames soon, probably not while Reid runs the Senate though. I really could see someone state that the Constitution doesn't guarantee anyone in the Senate the right to filibuster and anyone that loves doing that can go fuck themselves. If it ever happens, that will be fun to watch because SCOTUS might say "fuck that shit, you guys work it out!"
Money is an issue. Sadly, the Roberts Court has fucked us here. Good luck getting an amendment for public financing. I think that would help some of the issues, particularly if someone had a reasonable provision for what counts as being eligible for public financing. The rest of the issue is a problem, I'm not sure there is much that can be done here, maybe make sure former elected representatives can't be a paid lobbyist for a certain number of years.
It's suppose to be a means to slow things done. I'm okay with this to a degree, 2010 certainly highlights why we need such a setup because the tea party is toxic. I could get the idea of a PR system, where 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every 2 years and they still have 6 year terms.
The feature is that since states are wise and closer to their constituents while congress is in the thrall of Evil DC and the federal powers (which are big and scary and think they know everything, like about mercury standards and how to have non-racist elections), it is important to heavily subsidize the power of rural and sparse states so their wisdom and important interests aren't swamped by all those dumb city voters.
For example, the recent record in obstructed appointments, all the abortion bills and complete lack of job bills since 2010? Yeah, that's all "money". That's not how it's supposed to work, and the fact that the current system is being exploited by yokels, bigots and maniacs beholden only to corndog-eating bluehairs is because of those lobbyists with their "money", not because the system is a farce.
The problem is the senate. The problem is exacerbated by the reality of campaign finance, but it was a problem long before mass media created the current cost of campaigns.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
EDIT: Basically, nothing the Senate does actually touches on the issues of direct democracy. It's just about varying ways you conduct representative democracy.
Because the popular will is how we get shit like California Proposition 13.
The problem isn't with the structure, it's with the incentives of the politicians to represent narrow special interests and deliver pork, and in the case of judicial nominations with the poisonously adversarial nature of the nomination process since, oh probably since Robert Bork.
Your 'efficient' is my 'run roughshod over'. I don't necessarily see efficiency in the legislative process as useful or desirable. I'd prefer things be slow and full of stumbling blocks that only can be cleared rapidly by a broad and near-unanimous majority. Otherwise, time and deliberation aren't inherently bad. This will delay or derail things I'd like to see happen, in the future, but I'm OK with this. We're going to get a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade to get support for one that will be palatable to a broad coalition. A more 'efficient' Senate would have passed a shittier bill with no chance in the House, one good only as a wedge to further increase partisanship on both sides.
Another reason the Beltway is so dysfunctional.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What this actually means is "I would prefer no meaningful legislation was ever passed."
No, you're getting a pretty good immigration bill because it took a decade for Latino votes to become a target worth going after.
Popular will is terrible, except when it isn't.
When a mass shooting happens, and 90% of people want some new gun control measure, it's the will of the people, and it's the mean old Senate keeping it from happening. When it's been a few years since one, and that drops to about 50%, it's still the will of the people. And if it sits at 45%? Well, it's still common sense regulation that we need to be a better society, will of the people be damned.
When a majority support something like DOMA, it's tyrrany of the majority. When that popular opinion turns, suddenly we have to listen to the will of the people.
The people often want terrible things. Whether you're conservative or liberal, because the people are basically idiots who are easily led from point to point. Popular will is exactly how we get shit like DOMA, and the Iraq War for that matter. Of course, the Senate didn't stop those. So that makes me wonder, what has the Senate done in favor of liberals? Like, what were Democrats filibustering back during the Bush administration? I know they used it less, blah blah blah, but sure they must have blocked some dumb shit other than judicial nominations? What was it?
At the same time, I disagree with this notion that if only we could get rid of the Senate, and take away Wyoming's power, we'd be the country of rainbows, kittens, responsible socialism, and free blowjobs for all.
A) The Senate, but had just the House.
or
I don't agree with some of spool's political views but agree with him that fast isn't always better. We do need a legislative branch of the government has to be slower by default and is more likely to keep knowledgeable people around than the house. Someone to keep the country from imploding in the event that a bunch of the crazies get elected. Senate doesn't need to go, just need to fix the money issue, kill or fix the filibuster and I do think this country needs to move towards a PR system (that could be done without dissolving the Senate: 6 year terms with 1/3 up for vote every two years).
No, it means exactly what I said. I like meaningful legislation - I just don't often like your meaningful legislation. The same is almost certainly true for you. Trying to frame this discussion of the Senate's role as one where the Good and True Forces of Progress For The Betterment of All are battling against The Evil Bastards Who Never Want Anything to Get Better is ridiculous and false. If we're going to talk about The Senate as a legislative body, we have to talk about what happens when a supposedly more 'efficient' body that can Get Things Done starts getting things done that progressives hate.
Otherwise, this is just a thread about how bad people think the current Senate is, dressed up in the trappings of a conversation about structure.
No, we're getting a pretty good immigration bill because, now that Latino votes are a target, Senators on the right have some incentive to soften their positions in response to a change in the voting population. In other words, the Senate in this case is working correctly, as designed.
Immobile is not
So you're saying that it was a bad thing that a man who was hired to kill an investigation into a sitting President was raked over the coals?
House of Reps:
smallest pop district: 526K (RI-1)
largest pop district: 994K (MT)
Average: 710K
So its far from a perfect 1-1 ratio in the House, but its as close as could be while allowing each state to have at least 1. Rhode Island gets 2, Montanta just misses the cut.
Senate:
smallest pop district (state divided by 2) ~288,000 (Wyoming)
Largest pop district: ~19,000,000
Average 3.1 million
Most of the US system is built around checks and balances. The Senate is intended to slow rampant swings in public sentiment and take a more measured approach. As much as we deride it now, this actually is important. Representing a largely population with only 1/3 in danger of being voted out of office every two years, they are intended to be more moderate and patient than their peers in the House. During the Bush Presidency some of the worst abuses were prevented due to a Senate that could theoretically block Republican agendas. In practice the Senate has largely not avoided public sentiment that strongly, and at times has taken the lead when issues are unpopular among large segments of the people. Most Civil Rights legislation (from the 14th and 15th to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act) have passed the Senate more readily than the House.
However, the Constitution doesn't explicitly call for the filibuster. In a situation where all act in good faith its not a problem. Unfortunately this is no longer the case. Republican Senators are no longer moderates, but nearly as extreme as their House counterparts as conservative states become more uniform and unyielding in their ideology. Democratic majority states tend to be larger and there hasn't yet been nearly as big a swing on the other side, but Senators like Elizabeth Warren suggest its a possibility.
The filibuster allows a group of 41 Senators to hijack the agenda of the Senate. The 20 lowest population states plus 1/2 of the next state (CT) means that in theory under 12% of the US population's representatives can prevent any bill from becoming law. The 20 Senators of the most populous states represent a majority of the US population (53%). All Senators represent 98% of the US population (DC + territories). The 20 most populous states represent 70-75% of the population.
This has been a structural issues from the start. And until recent it has worked. So I would suggest the problem is more specific than structural.
The source of the problem:
-The Senators are the biggest problem. Bad actors make problems.
-The Rules of the Senate are the next biggest problem. They assume good faith Senators.
-The Senate itself is designed to be undemocratic, so a minority can elect those bad actors and prevent the rules from being rewritten.
Unfortunately, Harry Reid declined to change #2 at the start of the session.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
1): I'm really not much of a progressive
2): "Near-unanimous," in my mind, means like 85 votes, which means nothing gets done
Cool, so what I said, then
And I'm pointing out that Bork's hearing was adversarial less because of partisanship, and more because he was the triggerman for the Saturday Night Massacre.
Was that even brought up during his confirmation? The guy was subject to a vicious character assassination and the back-and-forth hasn't let up since.
When you actively work to undermine the rule of law, I would argue that you have no character to assassinate.
I bet that this is a sign that Schweitzer will run. Because seeing Rehberg getting an electoral kick in the teeth never gets old.
#BOLO
Where do politicians get their incentives from, if not from the structure? Carving up bills to hand off to special interests is enabled by the Senate structure, and the carving and parceling out of a bill is how a broad coalition is made. It's not clear that anything is gained from this process, except for concessions to moderate Senators and the narrow interests or states they represent.
Your second paragraph is straight status quo bias. It benefits incumbents and people who have manipulated the system in the past at the expense of any new entrants, to politics, to markets. It encourages cronyism and entrenches cronyism.
The other problem is that the filibuster undermines democratic accountability: what you want is for election winners to be held responsible for the results, but to do that you can’t let the losers play a major role in shaping policy. Similarly, you should want candidates to be held responsible for their ideas, not to embrace policies with a kind of wink-wink you’ll never get 60 votes for that sub rosa understanding that it’s not meant to be taken seriously.
That's one of the few good things about democracies: You can hold people responsible! The filibuster undermines that.
EDIT: And with this gun control vote this week, it's important to remember that it was basically irrelevant how the Senate voted, because afaik it was DOA in the House anyway.
the whole set up of your argument is, on the face of it, ridiculous.
"persons become senators to realize financial gain at some future date by kowtowing to lobbyists."
or
"the reason that the senate does not operate optimally is senators hope to realize financial gain at some future date by kowtowing to lobbyists"
contra
"senators are beholden to lobbyists for campaign contributions to acquire, maintain and defend their current positions as senators"
What would such a world look like?
Well it would look like a world in which a large number of senators leave the senate to become lobbyists. One would think that a significant portion would leave the senate to hop on the money train, before they turned say 75.
Instead we live in a world where senators only leave the senate when they are forced out, or are so old that they really do have a plausible desire to spend more time with their family (before they die of old age).
The average age of freshmen senators is something like 51. The average age of retirement from the senate is 75.
Your contention is that the desire for future wealth, in the darkest twilight of ones years is a stronger incentive to act than the desire to continue to be a senator and amass the fortune it takes to remain a senator in the form of campaign contributions. That contention is ridiculous.
Seriously this is some Tortoise and Achilles stuff here. Either you've been paying attention for the last two years or you haven't. I'm not going to catch you up. I suggest you do a thorough litterateur review and join the cool kids.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The purpose of the Senate is to allow representation of political sovereign entities who, by entering the union, surrendered nontrivial portions of that sovereignty to a common government. They should represent the States, and while direct election of them is A Thing You Have, it has very little to do with their indended purpose, as do the population figures in the states they represent - because they are not representatives for the American citizens, they are representatives for a State. Arguing that senators representing a small portion of the population can wield legislative majority isn't really relevant, because that's not who they're supposed to represent.
"Well, that's not very democratic". And that's where the House of Representatives enter, their purpose is to represent the citizenry proportionally, to give the majority of the electorate a voice in government. Yet, because of districting, they do not. Togheter with the way you elect the executive, you can have scenario where no branch of your government represents the majority will of the people.
Which is fucking retarded. But the problem there is not the Senate, the problem there is that the insitution supposed to assure a majority representation in government does not do so.
The filibuster (in the senate) is stupid because it affords a minority of States too much power. Efficiency in the regulatory process is always desireable, whether expediency is is another question.
Respect the bolo.
Public financing would solve some of this. Also any time they save not fundraising could be devoted towards writing bills, learning about a pressing issue or increasing communication with average citizens.
At a lengthy enough time, that if a former politician gets hired as a lobbyist, they'll have few colleagues left to attempt to guilt trip. Those remain colleagues may also feel less inclined to be generous with favors since they don't need campaign money, have time to write bills and did plenty without that person's aid. (Note I use paid, to get around the issue that some asshole will try to claim their 1st Amendment right is be violated if one tries to lock them out completely).
So penalize them for accepting lobbyist money. There's only 100 of these guys, audit their taxes every fucking year.