Senate How to best fix U.S. government?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Mar 29, 2014.

?

How can U.S. government best be fixed? (besides constitutional amendments)

disclosure and transparency for political campaign financing 8 vote(s) 40.0%
nonpartisan congressional redistricting for the House 6 vote(s) 30.0%
further erode the filibuster and similar measures in the Senate 3 vote(s) 15.0%
automatic voter registration/updating 2 vote(s) 10.0%
mandate that the options of early voting and vote-by-mail be available in every state 4 vote(s) 20.0%
eliminate the debt ceiling 3 vote(s) 15.0%
make it so government is always continuously funded (shutdowns no longer possible) 2 vote(s) 10.0%
Other? (please explain) 13 vote(s) 65.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Considering both Obama and the entire Republican Party are about equal in negativity, I'm not sure what the overall goals were since any chances of the Democrats getting "waxed" depend on the actual Democrats in Congress actually sharing his negativity... which it doesn't seem like.

    Overall, looks like Senate is likely to tilt slightly Republican and the House will depend more on which seats are up?

    But again, if the strategic goal for Congress is to get more of your party elected rather than getting work done... that's a bad strategy for the American people.
    -Jedi Joe- and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I'm just keen to hear beezel's views.
    dp4m likes this.
  3. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    Maybe! :D Or...maybe there are people who live and work on Capitol Hill that also happen to love Star Wars and enjoy TF.N.

    You never know! ;)
    DarthWilliams likes this.
  4. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Liking Star Wars is something we all did like maybe 10 years ago, more like 15. :(
    Kuag and anakinfansince1983 like this.
  5. duende Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2006
    star 5

    he's laying down turds in the taco bell breakfast thread at the moment. i'll try to get him to come over.
    Ender Sai likes this.
  6. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Or 35.
  7. DarthWilliams Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2008
    star 4

    Yep, I misread your comment, my bad.

    And to be clear, I never advocated (and never will advocate) for complete eradication of the filibuster. There's a reason Harry Reid only applied the nuclear option to presidential appointments. We had seen a clear pattern of the minority using the filibuster with no shame to bolster its agenda, like when we had senators saying "We won't vote on any of the president's appointments until we get answers on Benghazi." That type of obstruction for the sake of political theater and conflict-driven quotes in the press does no good for anyone. I'd rather Reid push some buttons and pass a controversial rule change that only applies to some Senate business than to completely halt all business in the Senate on account of a small number of senators' obstruction.
    Sauntaero and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  8. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    The strategic goal is not about getting more of anyone's party elected. It's actually about policy and specifically about driving toward your policy goals, which for me is drastically reducing the size of the federal government and improving people's lives by getting Washington less involved in them. I'm not a Republican in the sense that I'm a rah-rah go Red Team kind of guy. I spend just as much of my time (truthfully more) up here bashing Republicans as I do Democrats...and I do it on policy grounds.

    That stated, if you read Sean Trende's analysis on RCP, the Senate isn't slightly favored toward the GOP. It's outright favored. And it's largely based off historical analysis of where a President's approval ratings are.

    The House is not in play and won't be...unless the GOP does something incredibly stupid. Which is not beyond them in the slightest.
  9. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    I meant tilt "slightly Republican" in the sense that I tend to trust 538's forecasts and right now I believe they're forecasting 6 seats, making it a de facto 51/49 split for the Republicans (i.e. a "small tilt" since the Independents will still more often than not... not side with the GOP).

    And yes, I agree re: House unless districts all decided to nominate the most wingnut Tea Partiers possible. Which is... not entirely out of the realm of possibility...
  10. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    If it was being used the way it was intended to be used, then yes, but its not being used that way. You don't get to hold the legislative process, or the entire government for that matter, hostage in order to attain the majority from the other party.
    Last edited by Chancellor_Ewok, Mar 29, 2014
  11. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    I love that Bernie Sanders is considered an "Independent" who caucuses with the Democrats. He's a very outspoken self-described and proud Socialist! [face_laugh]

    If I had to predict (and there's still a long way to go), I think you see Republicans pick up Arkansas, North Carolina (although if Tillis wins, he's basically a Democrat), West Virginia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Alaska, and Iowa. Braley's really screwing the pooch for the Dems in Iowa.

    Ironically and to sort of push back on the Tea Party angle, if Mitch McConnell wins his primary, I actually think he loses the general and the Dems pick up that seat. If Matt Bevin (the Tea Party challenger) beats McConnell in the primary, the GOP will likely hold Kentucky.
  12. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    And debating on how best to deport Justin Bieber back to Canada.
    Kuag likes this.
  13. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    That's at least worthwhile, Juliet...
    Juliet316 likes this.
  14. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    Actually...you do. It is being used the way it's intended to. The point of the filibuster is to serve as a catalyst for grid lock and to give the minority the ability to prevent majorities from shoving bills or nominees through with a rubber stamp. Methinks you don't really understand your own system very well. ;)
  15. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Very very true...
  16. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6

    Actually, as I'm Canadian, it's not my system and thank god for that. We just get inundated with American political commentary, as most of our media comes from south of the border. In Canada, American politics is practically a spectator sport. :p
    Last edited by Chancellor_Ewok, Mar 29, 2014
  17. Kuag Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2009
    star 2

    * head to desk *

    Well, don't take this the wrong way and I'm sure you won't, but...you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to our system. Just as I know I am completely out of my league when it comes oto Canada's system. That stated we do have something in common as American politics is practically a spectator sport for us as well! [face_laugh]
  18. Rogue_Follower Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2003
    star 6
    Your quibble is with his choice of language, not the facts of the matter. Even if the overall goal is policy change (of which I have no doubt), GOP election victories are a component of that strategy, and the situation is exactly as dp4m described it: a focus on winning elections rather than getting work done.

    That's not good governance. The solution to bad government is not to increase the fecklessness of our legislative bodies.
    Jedi Merkurian and Point Given like this.
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Fairly ridiculous statement, when all is said and done.
    anakinfansince1983 and MrZAP like this.
  20. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Whoever suggested allowing SCOTUS rulings to be overturned by the populace doesn't know what a court ruling is. It's the outcome of a court case -- a judicial ruling. Putting those up to a vote is insane, and the Westminster idea of retroactivity is crazy. There's a reason that we put a prohibition on ex post facto laws in our Constitution, and that is subjecting people to liability or penalties for doing something that was totally legal when it happened is awful.

    We have one branch that's premised on experience and expertise -- just one. Everything else is about who can pander to the most people successfully, and the concept of just throwing it out for more American Idol is preposterous. Especially since it's in reaction to basically one (or even a few) decisions that have penetrated the complacency of a person's awareness.

    The litmus test of a sound political structure is that it works even when the result is against your preferences. In an elective system, that means the system still functions even when the other side wins. People don't like Citizens United -- that's great, except: I. People are objecting to it for the wrong reasons because they don't understand that corporate personhood has been the bedrock of what a corporation is since the freaking middle ages (the actual objection should be to the idea that money == speech) and II. what happens when the electorate decides to overturn a decision that people actually like?

    There's already a mechanism to blunt a Supreme Court ruling: it's called Congress, and it's already an elected body. Short of a constitutional ruling, Congress can change things if they feel like it.

    Where's the Tyson gif? :(
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Mar 29, 2014
    Rogue_Follower likes this.
  21. Bazinga'd SWC/PT/ Spinoff Manager -Destroyer of Spam

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 1, 2012
    star 5
    I am a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. If anyone has any questions on the process works, ask me.
  22. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    [IMG]
  23. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The Framers were also ok with slavery, racism, and sexism.

    But that's irrelevant, since the Framers didn't design or intend for the use of the filibuster.

    From everything you've posted, it seems that you're part of the problem. Laughing at people who think that the government could work better sure will win you fans, especially with the sky-high approval ratings for Congress... o_O
  24. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    To be fair, the government doesn't need dramatic structural changes to work better. It needs people in office who don't suck. :p
  25. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    It needs 600 member Supreme courts.