Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed?

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 07:36 AM

My father suggests that we pass a new rule, that a filibuster cannot take place until there has been a week of breathing room and time out.

And then, if they still wanna filibuster, it can be broken by 55 Senators..and not 60.

This way, the Senate cannot be held hostage by 41 Senators, which is a clear minority. 45 votes is more representative of the Senate, and of the will of the American people.

what u guys think?

mortimer · 26th January 2010, 07:41 AM

I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by mortimer

I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59.

55/45 is better. it means a larger minority of the Senate is required to impose its will upon 330 million people.

The Central Scrutinizer · 26th January 2010, 08:01 AM

It should be done away with completely. I've never understood why it existed in the first place.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

It should be done away with completely. I've never understood why it existed in the first place.

to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority.

it instead allows the tyranny of the minority...or the super-majority..depending on how you look at it.

Francesca R · 26th January 2010, 08:04 AM

It's there so that your politicians have to really want something to pass it. Tyranny of the supermajority is supposed to be better than tyranny of the simple one.

Francesca R · 26th January 2010, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

it instead allows the tyranny of the minority

Well keeping the status quo probably isn't thought of as tyranny.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Well keeping the status quo probably isn't thought of as tyranny.

i was being facetious. i don't consider it to really be "tyranny".

undo influence? perhaps.

i believe the separation of the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, should be enough to prevent bad things from becoming law. the filibuster rule seems not only to add possibly unnecessary red-tape to our government, but really does step on the notion of one man/one vote.

41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic.

adjusting the number of votes necessary for a filibuster to 45 votes, would make things slightly more fair and representative.

Beerina · 26th January 2010, 08:12 AM

I submit the entire legislative process should be overhauled, with no law being passed in the first place without a 3/4 majority.

Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. Where's the evidence that the barest abstraction of might makes right will somehow yield good lawmaking? This is a free country, not some sick game being played by populists.

Oh wait, nevermind.

Ziggurat · 26th January 2010, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

it instead allows the tyranny of the minority

A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

The Central Scrutinizer · 26th January 2010, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

Given the thing Washington has done for us over the years, I would suggest inaction is the preferred status.

Ziggurat · 26th January 2010, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Given the thing Washington has done for us over the years, I would suggest inaction is the preferred status.

Quite so.

Francesca R · 26th January 2010, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

i believe the separation of the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, should be enough to prevent bad things from becoming law.

It depends on what the rules are. In the UK the lower house (Commons) is supreme and can pretty much ignore the votes of the upper house (Lords--not elected anyway), and the Queen (erm, not elected either) hasn't vetoed any acts since 1708 (different queen).

So some people think the parliamentary system puts too much power in the hands of MPs.

Quote:

41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic.

It's a check on power. Checks don't work if you can sweep them away when they do something you don't like (such as kill the health care act).

Francesca R · 26th January 2010, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it.

There's also the matter of by the time it gets to a legislative vote, it no longer bears much resemblance to what the population wanted anyway.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it.

that's why it should be 55 votes to beat a filibuster. not only is it more than a majority of the Senate, but if its the right states it can be dramatically more then a majority of the American people.

Brainster · 26th January 2010, 09:21 AM

The rules should be changed so that a filibuster requires 25 Democrats or 75 Republicans. I suspect, but am not certain, that then liberals would think it fair.

mumblethrax · 26th January 2010, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

When the current state of affairs is glaringly unjust.

The filibustering of civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s is a good example of the tyranny of political inertia.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

When the current state of affairs is glaringly unjust.

The filibustering of civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s is a good example of the tyranny of political inertia.

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

Francesca R · 26th January 2010, 09:59 AM

If "not enacting legislation" is imposing your will, and "enacting legislation" is also imposing your will, then your notion of fairness is going to be violated some of the time whatever unless you redraw district and state boundaries as well.

Random · 26th January 2010, 10:24 AM

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster, it just needs to be enforced. You want to stop a bill, you have to stop the whole Senate. Instead, we just have this dippy, “well, they could filibuster in theory, therefore we can’t get anything done” agreement. Make the filibuster difficult again and most of the controversy would go away.

Faithkills · 26th January 2010, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

Perhaps, theoretically, but since the reality is there's only 20% liberals being represented by 59% liberal members in the Senate I think the fillibuster is doing it's job fine.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/co...cal-group.aspx

Generally 51% is insufficient justification to force your will on others. IMO it should be 90% all the way around.

When we vote legislation in we're courageously deciding to delegate authority to men in uniforms to compel obedience and failing that act violently on our behalf.

If we're really split ~ 50/50 because one person more person showed up to vote one day that doesn't seem enough justification. The government is supposed to act in the name of the people, to do what the people by and large agree should be done, not to endlessly vie for power to force the 49% to do the bidding of the 51%.

Sporanox · 26th January 2010, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

Parky, you keep on saying this like a clear majority of Americans support the health care bill. Here's the problem: they don't.

Also, you'll be on the other side of the coin when Republicans get power again, along with a certain Democratic hero (who has already demonstrated this unfortunate tendency).

WildCat · 26th January 2010, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic.

If this is about the idiotic health bills before Congress you'll find that the majority of Americans are against them. Your rule change would ensure that "the desires of the great majority of the American people" are disregarded.

dudalb · 26th January 2010, 10:33 AM

Yes, but it ain't gonna happen.

ZirconBlue · 26th January 2010, 10:36 AM

It's a farce. If we're OK with it requiring 60 votes to pass a bill, then we should just make it require 60 votes to pass, rather than sticking in an intermediate step.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

If this is about the idiotic health bills before Congress you'll find that the majority of Americans are against them. .

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America.

this is not right. this is not fare.

seayakin · 26th January 2010, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Random

There is nothing wrong with the filibuster, it just needs to be enforced. You want to stop a bill, you have to stop the whole Senate. Instead, we just have this dippy, “well, they could filibuster in theory, therefore we can’t get anything done” agreement. Make the filibuster difficult again and most of the controversy would go away.

I heard a political commentator say this very thing. Every time they talk about a filibuster I think of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but this commentator said that its been a long time since a senator actually filibustered instead of just threatening one.

Faithkills · 26th January 2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America.

this is not right. this is not fare.

It's not fair that some people can't spell.. but what can you do?

The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies.

The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen.

Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

theprestige · 26th January 2010, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by seayakin

I heard a political commentator say this very thing. Every time they talk about a filibuster I think of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but this commentator said that its been a long time since a senator actually filibustered instead of just threatening one.

How often is the filibuster bluff actually called, though?

I mean, it's not my fault if you back down without testing the truth of my threat, right?

Sporanox · 26th January 2010, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America.

this is not right. this is not fare.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...op_health_care

Quote:

Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform

Interesting you keep mentioning that number 60.

Skeptic Guy · 26th January 2010, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Faithkills

It's not fair that some people can't spell.. but what can you do?

The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies.

The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen.

Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

Bolding mine. Republicans keep saying this, but with no evidence.

Sporanox · 26th January 2010, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy

Bolding mine. Republicans keep saying this, but with no evidence.

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

If you want still more evidence that there is bipartisan support to kill the bill, just get a feel for what dailyKos, HuffPo, Howard Dean etc are saying. IIRC all of the major progressive players hated the bill.

WildCat · 26th January 2010, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by parky76

the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone.

No, the majority are also against the House and Senate health bills: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/artic...0Care%20Reform

Americans want them to start over. Less than 40% of Americans support the current bills.

Quote:

this is not right. this is not fare.

Pet peeve: fare is what you pay to get on the bus. The word you're looking for is fair.

Ashles · 26th January 2010, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It depends on what the rules are. In the UK the lower house (Commons) is supreme and can pretty much ignore the votes of the upper house (Lords--not elected anyway),

They can't ignore them as much as they should be able to.

The Lords can and has blocked many proposals for example this one today.

Their power is to some degree limited.

Wiki explains:

Quote:

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has some power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

In my opinion it is now an archaic embarassment that any part of our governmental process is in the hands of those whose only qualification for the job is that they were born in a certain family.

Drysdale · 26th January 2010, 11:35 AM

Funny you should bring this up now. Lemme guess though, if there's a huge flip in November then we'll need to change it back right?

Ziggurat · 26th January 2010, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sporanox

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

You're wrong. It's comic, not tragic.

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Funny you should bring this up now. Lemme guess though, if there's a huge flip in November then we'll need to change it back right?

no..i am not one of THOSE people.

Peephole · 26th January 2010, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Faithkills

Perhaps, theoretically, but since the reality is there's only 20% liberals being represented by 59% liberal members in the Senate I think the fillibuster is doing it's job fine.

This is retarded, not every Democrat is a liberal.

Also, if people don't like Democrats or their legislation, then they should vote for the other guys. This seems to be a strange concept around these parts.

The way politics generally works around the world is: people elect politicians, and these politicians execute the policies they were elected on.

If people don't like those policies, then tough luck, you shouldn't have been such a dumbass and have voted for someone else.

Originally Posted by parky76

the majority of Americans are against a public-option.

They're not.
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8042-C.pdf

Originally Posted by Faithkills

The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies.

No, it's because they're horribly misinformed (as are you as prices are estimated to go down) about and generally tired of the whole process, see the above poll.

Originally Posted by Faithkills

The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen.

So, one state in the United States decides everything?

Originally Posted by Faithkills

Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

Good luck getting any better legislation out of the U.S. Congress, especially with more Republicans in it.

Originally Posted by Sporanox

It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted...

Great plan, just throw away all elections and Rule by Rasmussen.

It alliterates so it can't possible be bad.

PogoPedant · 26th January 2010, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by ziggurat

a filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?

1776?

Thunder · 26th January 2010, 01:55 PM

it really is kinda dumb to base legislation on simple polls. i mean, its one thing if several independent and diverse polls show 90% of the population against something, that would be one thing.

but random..infrequent polls? i don't think so. the greatest TRUE reflection of the will of the American people...is votes.

59% of the American electorate voted for a Democratic legislative agenda in the Senate. this is beyond doubt. almost 60% of the House is also Democratic.

this speaks to the will of the American people.

26th January 2010, 07:36 AM	#1
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Should the Senate Filibuster rules be changed? My father suggests that we pass a new rule, that a filibuster cannot take place until there has been a week of breathing room and time out. And then, if they still wanna filibuster, it can be broken by 55 Senators..and not 60. This way, the Senate cannot be held hostage by 41 Senators, which is a clear minority. 45 votes is more representative of the Senate, and of the will of the American people. what u guys think?

26th January 2010, 07:41 AM	#2
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,476	I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59.
	__________________ "why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims "I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid

26th January 2010, 08:01 AM	#4
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,273	It should be done away with completely. I've never understood why it existed in the first place.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

26th January 2010, 08:07 AM	#8
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Francesca R Well keeping the status quo probably isn't thought of as tyranny. i was being facetious. i don't consider it to really be "tyranny". undo influence? perhaps. i believe the separation of the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, should be enough to prevent bad things from becoming law. the filibuster rule seems not only to add possibly unnecessary red-tape to our government, but really does step on the notion of one man/one vote. 41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic. adjusting the number of votes necessary for a filibuster to 45 votes, would make things slightly more fair and representative.
	Last edited by Thunder; 26th January 2010 at 08:11 AM.

26th January 2010, 08:12 AM	#9
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	I submit the entire legislative process should be overhauled, with no law being passed in the first place without a 3/4 majority. Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. Where's the evidence that the barest abstraction of might makes right will somehow yield good lawmaking? This is a free country, not some sick game being played by populists. Oh wait, nevermind.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 26th January 2010 at 08:13 AM.

26th January 2010, 07:49 AM	#3
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by mortimer I suspect your father would be just as happy to change the filibuster rule from 60 senators to 59. 55/45 is better. it means a larger minority of the Senate is required to impose its will upon 330 million people.

26th January 2010, 08:03 AM	#5
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer It should be done away with completely. I've never understood why it existed in the first place. to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority. it instead allows the tyranny of the minority...or the super-majority..depending on how you look at it.

26th January 2010, 08:04 AM	#6
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	It's there so that your politicians have to really want something to pass it. Tyranny of the supermajority is supposed to be better than tyranny of the simple one.

26th January 2010, 08:05 AM	#7
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by parky76 it instead allows the tyranny of the minority Well keeping the status quo probably isn't thought of as tyranny.

26th January 2010, 08:18 AM	#10
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,193	Originally Posted by parky76 it instead allows the tyranny of the minority A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

26th January 2010, 08:42 AM	#11
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,273	Originally Posted by Ziggurat A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny? Given the thing Washington has done *for us* over the years, I would suggest inaction is the preferred status.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

26th January 2010, 08:47 AM	#12
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,193	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Given the thing Washington has done *for us* over the years, I would suggest inaction is the preferred status. Quite so.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

26th January 2010, 08:49 AM	#13
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by parky76 i believe the separation of the legislative branch into the House and the Senate, should be enough to prevent bad things from becoming law. It depends on what the rules are. In the UK the lower house (Commons) is supreme and can pretty much ignore the votes of the upper house (Lords--not elected anyway), and the Queen (erm, not elected either) hasn't vetoed any acts since 1708 (different queen). So some people think the parliamentary system puts too much power in the hands of MPs. Quote: 41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic. It's a check on power. Checks don't work if you can sweep them away when they do something you don't like (such as kill the health care act).
	Last edited by Francesca R; 26th January 2010 at 08:55 AM.

26th January 2010, 08:56 AM	#14
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	Originally Posted by Beerina Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. There's also the matter of by the time it gets to a legislative vote, it no longer bears much resemblance to what the population wanted anyway.

26th January 2010, 09:10 AM	#15
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Beerina Think about it. What good will come of a 51% majority jamming something down the throats of half the population that doesn't want it. that's why it should be 55 votes to beat a filibuster. not only is it more than a majority of the Senate, but if its the right states it can be dramatically more then a majority of the American people.

26th January 2010, 09:21 AM	#16
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,426	The rules should be changed so that a filibuster requires 25 Democrats or 75 Republicans. I suspect, but am not certain, that then liberals would think it fair.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

26th January 2010, 09:49 AM	#17
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,061	Originally Posted by Ziggurat A filibuster prevents action. Since when is not doing anything considered tyranny? When the current state of affairs is glaringly unjust. The filibustering of civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s is a good example of the tyranny of political inertia.

26th January 2010, 09:53 AM	#18
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by mumblethrax When the current state of affairs is glaringly unjust. The filibustering of civil rights legislation in the 50s and 60s is a good example of the tyranny of political inertia. exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country.

26th January 2010, 09:59 AM	#19
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,825	If "not enacting legislation" is imposing your will, and "enacting legislation" is also imposing your will, then your notion of fairness is going to be violated some of the time whatever unless you redraw district and state boundaries as well.

26th January 2010, 10:24 AM	#20
Random Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,463	There is nothing wrong with the filibuster, it just needs to be enforced. You want to stop a bill, you have to stop the whole Senate. Instead, we just have this dippy, “well, they could filibuster in theory, therefore we can’t get anything done” agreement. Make the filibuster difficult again and most of the controversy would go away.
	__________________ ...So, the next time you find yourself desperately Googling for some factual example that proves your argument is right, and failing to find even one, stop. See if you can put the brakes on and actually say, out loud, "Wait a second. If the things I'm saying in order to bolster my argument are consistently wrong, then maybe my argument is also wrong." -Cracked

26th January 2010, 10:24 AM	#21
Faithkills Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 429	Originally Posted by parky76 exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country. Perhaps, theoretically, but since the reality is there's only 20% liberals being represented by 59% liberal members in the Senate I think the fillibuster is doing it's job fine. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123854/co...cal-group.aspx Generally 51% is insufficient justification to force your will on others. IMO it should be 90% all the way around. When we vote legislation in we're courageously deciding to delegate authority to men in uniforms to compel obedience and failing that act violently on our behalf. If we're really split ~ 50/50 because one person more person showed up to vote one day that doesn't seem enough justification. The government is supposed to act in the name of the people, to do what the people by and large agree should be done, not to endlessly vie for power to force the 49% to do the bidding of the 51%.
	Last edited by Faithkills; 26th January 2010 at 10:26 AM.

26th January 2010, 10:28 AM	#22
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by parky76 exactly. 41% of the Senate, which could represent 25% of the American people, should not be able to impose its will on the rest of the country. Parky, you keep on saying this like a clear majority of Americans support the health care bill. Here's the problem: they don't. Also, you'll be on the other side of the coin when Republicans get power again, along with a certain Democratic hero (who has already demonstrated this unfortunate tendency).
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

26th January 2010, 10:31 AM	#23
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,009	Originally Posted by parky76 41 senators, representing much less than half of the population of the USA, can shut down the desires of the great majority of the American people. i don't find this to be very fair and democratic. If this is about the idiotic health bills before Congress you'll find that the majority of Americans are against them. Your rule change would ensure that "the desires of the great majority of the American people" are disregarded.

26th January 2010, 10:33 AM	#24
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,814	Yes, but it ain't gonna happen.

26th January 2010, 10:36 AM	#25
ZirconBlue Sole Survivor of L-Town Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Wilson, North Carolina, USA, Earth Posts: 11,317	It's a farce. If we're OK with it requiring 60 votes to pass a bill, then we should just make it require 60 votes to pass, rather than sticking in an intermediate step.
	__________________ Religion and sex are powerplays. Manipulate the people for the money they pay. Selling skin, selling God The numbers look the same on their credit cards.

26th January 2010, 10:38 AM	#26
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by WildCat If this is about the idiotic health bills before Congress you'll find that the majority of Americans are against them. . the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone. but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America. this is not right. this is not fare.

26th January 2010, 10:39 AM	#27
seayakin Muse Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Somewhere on a wave in the North Atlantic Posts: 857	Originally Posted by Random There is nothing wrong with the filibuster, it just needs to be enforced. You want to stop a bill, you have to stop the whole Senate. Instead, we just have this dippy, “well, they could filibuster in theory, therefore we can’t get anything done” agreement. Make the filibuster difficult again and most of the controversy would go away. I heard a political commentator say this very thing. Every time they talk about a filibuster I think of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but this commentator said that its been a long time since a senator actually filibustered instead of just threatening one.
	__________________ "I kayak, therefore I am"

26th January 2010, 10:52 AM	#28
Faithkills Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 429	Originally Posted by parky76 the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone. but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America. this is not right. this is not fare. It's not fair that some people can't spell.. but what can you do? The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies. The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen. Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors.

26th January 2010, 10:56 AM	#29
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569	Originally Posted by seayakin I heard a political commentator say this very thing. Every time they talk about a filibuster I think of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" but this commentator said that its been a long time since a senator actually filibustered instead of just threatening one. How often is the filibuster bluff actually called, though? I mean, it's not my fault if you back down without testing the truth of my threat, right?
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,569

26th January 2010, 10:58 AM	#30
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by parky76 the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone. but, even with that change, Republicans in the Senate refuse to allow it come for a vote. 41 Senators, from states representing less than 40% of the American population, are dictating to more than 60% of America. this is not right. this is not fare. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...op_health_care Quote: Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform Interesting you keep mentioning that number 60.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

26th January 2010, 11:06 AM	#31
Skeptic Guy Raccoon Death Squad Leader Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Southeast of Disorder Posts: 6,996	Originally Posted by Faithkills It's not fair that some people can't spell.. but what can you do? The fact is most people don't want this bill, public option or not. They don't want it because it will drive up prices and be a huge windfall for insurance companies. The travesty would be if 60 senators could override the will of the people. The people spoke in Mass. Best they listen. Perhaps now real reform can occur, not this boondoggle of payoffs to corporate political donors. Bolding mine. Republicans keep saying this, but with no evidence.
	__________________ "Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan Even Mother Teresa^WP doubted.

26th January 2010, 11:10 AM	#32
Sporanox Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in the black Posts: 899	Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy Bolding mine. Republicans keep saying this, but with no evidence. It is really quite tragic that you chose to post that right after the Rasmussen poll was posted... If you want still more evidence that there is bipartisan support to kill the bill, just get a feel for what dailyKos, HuffPo, Howard Dean etc are saying. IIRC all of the major progressive players hated the bill.
	__________________ A joke is a very serious thing. -Winston Churchill

26th January 2010, 11:19 AM	#33
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,009	Originally Posted by parky76 the majority of Americans are against a public-option. that will not appear in any final bill. that was the major issue for many months. now it is gone. No, the majority are also against the House and Senate health bills: http://www.allheadlinenews.com/artic...0Care%20Reform Americans want them to start over. Less than 40% of Americans support the current bills. Quote: this is not right. this is not fare. Pet peeve: fare is what you pay to get on the bus. The word you're looking for is fair.

26th January 2010, 11:22 AM	#34
Ashles Pith Artist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The '80s Posts: 8,711	Originally Posted by Francesca R It depends on what the rules are. In the UK the lower house (Commons) is supreme and can pretty much ignore the votes of the upper house (Lords--not elected anyway), They can't ignore them as much as they should be able to. The Lords can and has blocked many proposals for example this one today. Their power is to some degree limited. Wiki explains: Quote: The House of Lords debates legislation, and has some power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto. In my opinion it is now an archaic embarassment that any part of our governmental process is in the hands of those whose only qualification for the job is that they were born in a certain family.
	__________________ With extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. - Jeffrey Burton Russell No one "proved" that a bumblebee can't fly. What was shown was that a certain simple mathematical model wasn't adequate or appropriate - Ivars Peterson

26th January 2010, 11:35 AM	#35
Drysdale Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,017	Funny you should bring this up now. Lemme guess though, if there's a huge flip in November then we'll need to change it back right?