It's an interesting procedural rule which the minority is very much motivated to have in place. I have mixed feelings about it. Bottom line, it seems like we should be a nation of majority rule - not requiring "super" majority rule.
It's an interesting procedural rule which the minority is very much motivated to have in place. I have mixed feelings about it. Bottom line, it seems like we should be a nation of majority rule - not requiring "super" majority rule.
I'd favor a rule where nothing became law without 10% of the opposing party's support. Laws aren't meant to be willy-nilly easy. They also are not meant to give one party, minority or majority, totalitarian rule which Mitch essentially has had for 20 years or so.
Disagree with this but understand your sentiment. I think the problem is that we donтАЩt do enough. I also think 10% is misleading. If you got to Wyoming senators that would represent like .1% of the population. If you got to California that is >10% of the population. Hard to make the math work with the population
Get rid of it. Make politicians put their money where their mouth is. If republicans pass crazy shit, let them suffer at the ballot box. Same goes for democrats. IтАЩve come the conclusion that a lot of our problems are caused by inaction not too much legislation.
I hear ya. Sometimes I wish we'd just go with a parliamentarian system. (Yeah, I know, grass is always greener.)
There is a, gulp, *compromise* approach: make the filibuster Jimmy Stewart again! Perhaps if conducting a filibuster were sufficiently painful, it would actually fulfil its promise as suggested by its supporters.
Right. I meant to write "waiving."
It's an interesting procedural rule which the minority is very much motivated to have in place. I have mixed feelings about it. Bottom line, it seems like we should be a nation of majority rule - not requiring "super" majority rule.
I'd favor a rule where nothing became law without 10% of the opposing party's support. Laws aren't meant to be willy-nilly easy. They also are not meant to give one party, minority or majority, totalitarian rule which Mitch essentially has had for 20 years or so.
Disagree with this but understand your sentiment. I think the problem is that we donтАЩt do enough. I also think 10% is misleading. If you got to Wyoming senators that would represent like .1% of the population. If you got to California that is >10% of the population. Hard to make the math work with the population
Get rid of it. Make politicians put their money where their mouth is. If republicans pass crazy shit, let them suffer at the ballot box. Same goes for democrats. IтАЩve come the conclusion that a lot of our problems are caused by inaction not too much legislation.
I hear ya. Sometimes I wish we'd just go with a parliamentarian system. (Yeah, I know, grass is always greener.)
There is a, gulp, *compromise* approach: make the filibuster Jimmy Stewart again! Perhaps if conducting a filibuster were sufficiently painful, it would actually fulfil its promise as suggested by its supporters.
Yeah, but Ted "Green Eggs and Ham" Cruz is still there. Painful for most of the country, but not for him.