Filibuster

[willhaven]

Not if they don't control both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Right now?

Or last year when they weren't sure they could get the health care bill passed?

Did they? I was looking for it, and I never heard any of them threatening it.

(Don't be confused. As mentioned earlier, for some reason, people were also referring to the application of the reconciliation rule as "the nuclear option". Basically, budget bills already are not subject to filibuster.)

I think another reason they didn't is, as has been pointed out, the "nuclear option" wrt the filibuster and the Affordable Care Act is that Democrats actually had a supermajority in the Senate at the beginning of the 111th Congress. Of course, it's probably also true that in general Democrats are not in favor of doing away with the filibuster. (Sadly, that means they have pretty much given up the ability to use the "nuclear option" as a deterrent to filibuster abuse.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by willhaven

Not if they don't control both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

True enough. And the veto, which has come to be something seen to have heavy political costs, would end up being used more frequently (and therefore would shed its heavy political price), and eventually we'd have about the same balance between ease and difficulty in passing major legislation.

So what would the advantage be to ending the filibuster?

I suppose one would be the one I've been mentioning. The Democratic Party has more or less given up the ability to threaten the "nuclear option" as a deterrent to filibuster abuse. If they went through with it, and things shifted around so that the veto was the way of preventing slim majorities from making wholesale changes, at least the parties would be back on more or less even ground.

[bonzombiekitty]

Originally Posted by willhaven

Not if they don't control both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

Until you have a party that controls both houses and the executive branch, such as 2002-2006.

Not saying the filibuster should be used as often as it is, but it is good protection for the minority party.

[BravesFan]

The line item veto would help stop filibusters a bit I think.

So would increasing bill requirements to 60% majority to pass.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

<snip> would help stop filibusters a bit I think.

So would increasing bill requirements to 60% majority to pass.

Wouldn't requiring a 60% majority to pass bills in the Senate essentially be the equivalent of a filibuster on every bill (given that a cloture vote--to end a filibuster--requires a 3/5 majority or 60 votes)?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty

Not saying the filibuster should be used as often as it is, but it is good protection for the minority party.

I agree, but what is the check against misuse of the filibuster? Apparently, the GOP has figured out that the traditional check (threatening the "nuclear option") is meaningless if we all know one party will never pull the trigger.

I suppose the only remaining check is the ballot box.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Wouldn't requiring a 60% majority to pass bills in the Senate essentially be the equivalent of a filibuster on every bill (given that a cloture vote--to end a filibuster--requires a 3/5 majority or 60 votes)?

I would say that any bill that couldn't gain 60% of the vote may not be worth passing.

The line item veto, would help presidents pacify their party members in congress as they could assure them of vetoing certain parts of bills that they had planned to filibuster , yet allow other parts that all might agree upon.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I would say that any bill that couldn't gain 60% of the vote may not be worth passing.

I hope you're only speaking of the Senate, at least. Relatively few House bills are passed by that margin.

So, in the Senate, your plan to get rid of the filibuster is to have a de facto filibuster on every bill?

[BravesFan]

Nope, my plan to increase the quality of our laws and help diminish the filibusters usage is to increase passage to 60%.

But , I tend to think gridlock is a good thing for republics.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Nope, my plan to increase the quality of our laws and help diminish the filibusters usage is to increase passage to 60%.

But , I tend to think gridlock is a good thing for republics.

Yeah, not seeing it...

Quote:

The mere thought of political gridlock normally makes investors smile. But grins are giving way to frowns and worry lines as the countdown to a U.S. debt default inches closer with divided lawmakers still unable to strike a deal.

Linky.

Quote:

Standard & Poor's has evaluated the data of what actually does happen to stocks during a divided government, and the answers might be surprising. The study examined three conditions: Total unity, when one party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives; partial gridlock, where one party controls both houses of Congress and another the White House; and total gridlock, when Congress is split.
Looking at the numbers more internally, there is a tie for best performance when looking at party control. Both complete Republican control, and a Democratic president and Republican Congress have had returns of 15.1 percent. The latter scenario was best seen under the Clinton administration and often serves as the template for the "gridlock-is-good" crowd.

...

"The good thing with perceived gridlock is at least bad things for business won't be coming out of Washington anymore," says Steve East, chief economist and market strategist at Height Analytics in Washington, D.C. "To take a longer-term view, gridlock is not good. The country has big problems. It would be better for the intermediate and long-term health of the economy and markets if we could deal with it before it becomes an outright crisis."

Linky.

Quote:

On Monday, after the bipartisan 12-member super committee announced its failure to agree upon $1.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, Roubini, also known as Dr. Doom, tweeted the following: "Super-Committee: Super-Failure, Super-Pathetic, Super-Gridlock, Super-GOP-Lunacy on Taxes, Super-Fiscal Drag in 2012 that ensures double dip."
But his prediction goes beyond the partisan bickering of the committee tasked to cut the country's budget deficits. His point rests upon the inability of ALL Republicans and Democrats in Washington to work together on any economic issue that would benefit the good of the country. He does note that more blame should be laid at the feet of Republicans for their unwillingness to compromise.

Linky.

I know this is a popular mantra, but looking at all the problems that aren't being addressed, and I don't see it.

Not to mention that more gridlock leads to perverse outcomes, like log-rolling and omnibus bills.

[BravesFan]

I love log rolling!!!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[willhaven]

Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty

Until you have a party that controls both houses and the executive branch, such as 2002-2006.

Not saying the filibuster should be used as often as it is, but it is good protection for the minority party.

Then they should pass whatever they want.

2002-2006 had the administration get much of what it wanted anyway.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So, in the Senate, your plan to get rid of the filibuster is to have a de facto filibuster on every bill?

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Nope, my plan to increase the quality of our laws and help diminish the filibusters [sic] usage is to increase passage to 60%.

So by "Nope" you mean "yep"?

(Remember, cloture requires a 60% majority, so again, making passage of all laws dependent on a 60% majority vote is essentially the same thing as calling an automatic filibuster on every bill.)

ETA: You won't be diminishing use of the filibuster if you effectively require a filibuster of every bill. That's what you're actually proposing.

[geni]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I would say that any bill that couldn't gain 60% of the vote may not be worth passing.

Then realisticaly you are too ignorant of party politics to hold a meaningful opinion.

Even with the loser party system the US has the reality is that a significant chunk of the opposition party will vote no on pretty much everything. Given the fairly narrow majorities that tend to be held in the senate that means that even if you have a bill that is a fairly good idea there is a fair chance it won't pass simply because:
1)there aren't enough switch voters
2)There are enough Switch voters but on this occasion they think they've been switching too often and feel the need to polish up their opposition credentials.

Bipartisanship and consensus goverment are nice slogans but tend to break down once you consider the real world conditions that politicians face.

Quote:

The line item veto, would help presidents pacify their party members in congress as they could assure them of vetoing certain parts of bills that they had planned to filibuster , yet allow other parts that all might agree upon.

An offer that makes it impossible for the other party to put together a compromise bill since they know that the president will just remove the stuff they want.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by geni

Then realisticaly you are too ignorant of party politics to hold a meaningful opinion.

Even with the loser party system the US has the reality is that a significant chunk of the opposition party will vote no on pretty much everything. Given the fairly narrow majorities that tend to be held in the senate that means that even if you have a bill that is a fairly good idea there is a fair chance it won't pass simply because:
1)there aren't enough switch voters
2)There are enough Switch voters but on this occasion they think they've been switching too often and feel the need to polish up their opposition credentials.

Bipartisanship and consensus goverment are nice slogans but tend to break down once you consider the real world conditions that politicians face.



An offer that makes it impossible for the other party to put together a compromise bill since they know that the president will just remove the stuff they want.

I'm not ignorant of anything. (well, not the subject at hand anyway) I realize exactly how party politics work. I am also in favor of very few new laws. I would love for there to be gridlock to the point that the American public is forced into opening up the multiple party possiblities as well as put the screws on the existing parties to work together better. a 60% majority required to pass votes would enable this in a faster manner.

See? I'm using this as a lever to try and force cooperation.

[Random]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I'm not ignorant of anything. (well, not the subject at hand anyway) I realize exactly how party politics work. I am also in favor of very few new laws. I would love for there to be gridlock to the point that the American public is forced into opening up the multiple party possiblities as well as put the screws on the existing parties to work together better. a 60% majority required to pass votes would enable this in a faster manner.

See? I'm using this as a lever to try and force cooperation.

Setting up procedural roadblocks to force cooperation assumes that both sides actually want to get something done. If your side is willing to let things fall into ruin rather than actually accomplish anything, you can hold the whole thing hostage whenever you want.

Not to mention it being possible in some circumstances to implement your agenda by doing nothing. If you are opposed to the minimum wage, you can simply not vote to increase it, and inflation will eat away at it over time.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by Random

Setting up procedural roadblocks to force cooperation assumes that both sides actually want to get something done. If your side is willing to let things fall into ruin rather than actually accomplish anything, you can hold the whole thing hostage whenever you want.

Not to mention it being possible in some circumstances to implement your agenda by doing nothing. If you are opposed to the minimum wage, you can simply not vote to increase it, and inflation will eat away at it over time.

I think you are forgetting the voter. The number one goal of all politicians is to get re-elected. If they are inactive, eventually the voter will replace them with someone willing to be more pro-active.

BTW, there is some evidence that the minimum wage contributes as much to inflation as anything.

[Upchurch]

Previously on US Politics

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I think you are forgetting the voter. The number one goal of all politicians is to get re-elected. If they are inactive, eventually the voter will replace them with someone willing to be more pro-active.

When "eventually" is measured in decades, that solution is pretty meaningless.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty

Which then allows the party with the slimmest of a majority to basically do whatever it wants to do.

I think there is some value in codifying into our law making process that some decisions are simply "bigger" and should require more people to be behind them a simple 50%.

As it stands now once a party has a Supermajority the other party might as well not show up. I pale to think what the party in power could do it all it took was a simple majority.

Imagine it all it took was a simple majority to push though a Constitutional Amendment? *Shudders*

[BravesFan]

@Sezme


Hmm, i would disagree with that. The voters have shown a consistent ability to "vote the bums out" when there have been stagnant ,ineffective congresses. (Republican Revolution under Clinton, the opposite result under Bush Jr's 2nd term...etc)

I think that the voters have done a fairly good job at policing congress. it's never going to be an efficient system, any form of govt that involves large groups of people agreeing on things never will be, but I am of the opinion that it should be more encompassing to pass new laws, should require more cooperation, and though initially there would be more partisan nonsense, I think a 60% majority would force the two sides to work together a bit more.

But perhaps I am being a bit too idealistic?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I think you are forgetting the voter. The number one goal of all politicians is to get re-elected. If they are inactive, eventually the voter will replace them with someone willing to be more pro-active.

Your proposal goes against giving voters more authority. Again, you are proposing a de facto filibuster of every bill in the Senate. This favors the minority, not the majority.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Hmm, i would disagree with that. The voters have shown a consistent ability to "vote the bums out" when there have been stagnant ,ineffective congresses.

Under the current rules, that is. Not under your proposal.

Even so, I think it's arguable whether or not they have been able to do that in a timely manner.

The opposite has also happened. We had an influx of Tea Party candidates whose primary approach to legislation was "no compromise".

How exactly would your proposal make it more likely that we'd have more Congresses willing to work together?

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Under the current rules, that is. Not under your proposal.

Even so, I think it's arguable whether or not they have been able to do that in a timely manner.

The opposite has also happened. We had an influx of Tea Party candidates whose primary approach to legislation was "no compromise".

How exactly would your proposal make it more likely that we'd have more Congresses willing to work together?

because the stagnation in congress will lead to a high turnover until both sides learn to compromise. i can't see the public willing to sit around and watch constant partisan inactivity for long. This is a long term, not a short term plan btw.


What I would really love,would be a 4 or 5 party system where nobody had the majority. Then we could goto a simple majority for passage of bills, because by nature there would be mucho compromise afoot.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

As it stands now once a party has a Supermajority the other party might as well not show up. I pale to think what the party in power could do it all it took was a simple majority.

Isn't that exactly the status in the House?

[JoeBentley]

No 290 of the 435 seats is a supermajority in the house. The GOP has 242.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

because the stagnation in congress will lead to a high turnover until both sides learn to compromise.

Why would that happen? And how would making every bill in the Senate face an automatic filibuster be a solution?

In fact, I think it would exacerbate the gridlock problem.

ETA: And I think you ignore the fact that many people are motivated to favor gridlock in some situations.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Why would that happen? And how would making every bill in the Senate face an automatic filibuster be a solution?

In fact, I think it would exacerbate the gridlock problem.

ETA: And I think you ignore the fact that many people are motivated to favor gridlock in some situations.

i like gridlock sometimes , I think any one party in total power is not a good thing.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

No 290 of the 435 seats is a supermajority in the house. The GOP has 242.

I think SezMe was pointing out that the House has no filibuster, and bills pass by simple majority in the House.

I've been assuming that LogicFail's proposal is only for the Senate.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

i like gridlock sometimes , I think any one party in total power is not a good thing.

I completely agree, but there's a fine line between gridlock and just getting !@#$-all accomplished.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

i like gridlock sometimes , I think any one party in total power is not a good thing.

OK, so would increasing gridlock by your proposed rule change encourage you to vote for different candidates?

I thought you were arguing the opposite: that increasing gridlock by your rule change would cause voters to vote out their Senators and result (magically?) in a Senate more willing to work together and result in the long term in less gridlock.

I still don't see how or why that would work.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

OK, so would increasing gridlock by your proposed rule change encourage you to vote for different candidates?

I thought you were arguing the opposite: that increasing gridlock by your rule change would cause voters to vote out their Senators and result (magically?) in a Senate more willing to work together and result in the long term in less gridlock.

I still don't see how or why that would work.

I don't like the simple majority to pass laws as i think that if a law cannot pass by a 60% than it isn't good enough to merit passing.

i think you underrate the voters ability to see through the malarky of Congress.

If , over time, nothing gets done, they will vote in new people, if they get nothing done they will continue until either:

A) politicians start to compromise to keep their jobs
or

B) political partisanship shifts to accommodate this new 60% margin



Like I said, it would take 20 years maybe to work, and I bet that most things important enough to be needed would still get passed (as their political lives depend on it) but something needs to break the pattern of partisanship in Washington, the way we are going isn't working to well. (personally I would love a few more parties to strip everyone from a majority) but I doubt that happens anytime soon.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

I don't like the simple majority to pass laws as i think that if a law cannot pass by a 60% than it isn't good enough to merit passing.

Why? Are you familiar with the bandwagon fallacy?

Quote:

i think you underrate the voters ability to see through the malarky of Congress.

Actually I think you do. See below:

Quote:

If , over time, nothing gets done, they will vote in new people,

If nothing gets done because the Senate adopted your proposed rule (effectively automatically subjecting every bill to a filibuster), why wouldn't the voters clamor for the Senate to do away with your rule?

Even when approval of Congress drops, voters still tend to make an exception for the case of their Congress person.

Still, at best you're arguing that the voters will try to undo the damage done by adopting your rule change. (This reasoning reminds me of a that of a chiropractor I know who insists that in the heat of summer, you can cool your body down by drinking hot coffee--because the hot coffee causes you to sweat, which cools you down!)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by LogicFail

Like I said, it would take 20 years maybe to work, and I bet that most things important enough to be needed would still get passed (as their political lives depend on it) but something needs to break the pattern of partisanship in Washington, the way we are going isn't working to well. (personally I would love a few more parties to strip everyone from a majority) but I doubt that happens anytime soon.

I think this solution focuses on the wrong problems. It seems to me that Congress isn't getting to deal with problems when it is practical and have to wait for CRISIS time. Look at debt, Social Security, Medicare, illegal immigration, and so on. We just keep passing the buck and the problems keep growing larger. I agree that I would like more consensual politics, but I don't think gridlock and omnifilibusters lead that way.

[BravesFan]

Why does it seem like everybody is attacking me today.........

fine you are right, everything I say is wrong and stupid....

[SezMe]

It's the politics subforum of a skeptical board. You could post you like motherhood and apple pie and someone will ring your chimes about it. Post what you like, take what makes sense and laugh at the rest.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I think SezMe was pointing out that the House has no filibuster, and bills pass by simple majority in the House.

Yes. JoeBentley, you said you'd be poopless if bills passed by a simple majority. But that is exactly how half of our congress has worked from day one.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Like I said, it would take 20 years maybe to work, ....

The problem with your idea is that there are always new congresscritters being elected. So your 20 years is a rolling 20 years that never comes to an end point.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Why does it seem like everybody is attacking me today.........

No one has attacked you. We're attacking (or at least questioning) what you've said. I encourage you to try to defend your views, or reconsider them.

I'd love for you to change your opinion based on my rational logical arguments. I would hate for you to give in because you think you're being bullied.

No one wants to bully you into submission!

On a tangent, did you just change your username? I was about to apologize for getting two different posters confused. . . .