When dems are in power, the reps will filibuster for every bill the dems want to pass.
When republicans have the power, they just want to maintain the status quo and paint any and all opposition as un-american, and basically scaring the dems to shut up.
The system is flawed IN ITS ENTIRETY. If america wants real change in ANYTHING, they should institute national referendums on larger issues, not just assign people who will be bought by corporate money.
@Tounushi - There is no need for the filibuster to go away.
As the speaker outlined, all we need is reasonable reform of the filibuster. Let it serve its original intended purpose: to slow down debate, and force the debate to include a wider variety of views. Take away its power to completely stop the work of government from getting done.
This proposed reform is so sensible, so downright conservative, opponents of it would find it tough to sound reasonable, and I'd love to see them try.
If they make the filibuster less obstructive, that would be good. But I fear it would not be enough. Whatever system is in place instead will be abused just as easily as the filibuster.
The easiest solution IMO, is to bring a parliamentary system of four or more parties. They do not need to be equal in numbers, but it would be better to have four or five parties of varying ideologies rather than two parties who are polar opposites of each other. Umbrella parties are no solution.
@Tounushi - For a multi-party parliamentary system to become practical in the United States, a radical overhaul of the entire electoral system would be necessary. Nearly every parliamentary system in the world uses proportional representation, not the "winner-take-all" system common in nearly every U.S. electoral district.
I am not sure why you think such a thing would be easy.
It would be about as easy to follow George Washington's advice, and get rid of political parties altogether.
I am not saying it would be easy, but I am saying it would be best for america to strive for it.
The entire polarisation of the voting populace into "democrat, republican or independent" does not work. It would be like having one liberal democrat (or social democrat) party and one nationalist party (extreme right-wing or otherwise) party vying for control.
The opposition would not function as the devils advocate, making sure the govt. does not mess up, but they're trying to sabotage the party in power, and thus nothing constructive gets done.
But one thing you CAN do rather easily is to put a term cap for your senate and house. Thus new blood gets into the legislative body, and it does not stagnate (as much).
I understand a country of 300 million is difficult to legislate thru referendum, but I still think that your form of representational democracy is very open to abuse and corruption, much as we now see with many senators being owned by corporate and special interests.
The filibuster will never go away.
When dems are in power, the reps will filibuster for every bill the dems want to pass.
When republicans have the power, they just want to maintain the status quo and paint any and all opposition as un-american, and basically scaring the dems to shut up.
The system is flawed IN ITS ENTIRETY. If america wants real change in ANYTHING, they should institute national referendums on larger issues, not just assign people who will be bought by corporate money.
Tounushi 1 year ago
@Tounushi - There is no need for the filibuster to go away.
As the speaker outlined, all we need is reasonable reform of the filibuster. Let it serve its original intended purpose: to slow down debate, and force the debate to include a wider variety of views. Take away its power to completely stop the work of government from getting done.
This proposed reform is so sensible, so downright conservative, opponents of it would find it tough to sound reasonable, and I'd love to see them try.
kevintype 1 year ago
@kevintype
If they make the filibuster less obstructive, that would be good. But I fear it would not be enough. Whatever system is in place instead will be abused just as easily as the filibuster.
The easiest solution IMO, is to bring a parliamentary system of four or more parties. They do not need to be equal in numbers, but it would be better to have four or five parties of varying ideologies rather than two parties who are polar opposites of each other. Umbrella parties are no solution.
Tounushi 1 year ago
@Tounushi - For a multi-party parliamentary system to become practical in the United States, a radical overhaul of the entire electoral system would be necessary. Nearly every parliamentary system in the world uses proportional representation, not the "winner-take-all" system common in nearly every U.S. electoral district.
I am not sure why you think such a thing would be easy.
It would be about as easy to follow George Washington's advice, and get rid of political parties altogether.
kevintype 1 year ago
@kevintype
I am not saying it would be easy, but I am saying it would be best for america to strive for it.
The entire polarisation of the voting populace into "democrat, republican or independent" does not work. It would be like having one liberal democrat (or social democrat) party and one nationalist party (extreme right-wing or otherwise) party vying for control.
-continued-
Tounushi 1 year ago
@kevintype
-continued-
The opposition would not function as the devils advocate, making sure the govt. does not mess up, but they're trying to sabotage the party in power, and thus nothing constructive gets done.
But one thing you CAN do rather easily is to put a term cap for your senate and house. Thus new blood gets into the legislative body, and it does not stagnate (as much).
-continued-
Tounushi 1 year ago
@kevintype
-continued-
I understand a country of 300 million is difficult to legislate thru referendum, but I still think that your form of representational democracy is very open to abuse and corruption, much as we now see with many senators being owned by corporate and special interests.
Tounushi 1 year ago