Daschle, Frank, Lott, Livingston; they fight gridlock...
October 17, 2014 7:05 AM Subscribe
A bipartisan commission convened by Esquire magazine has reported its findings on how to make Congress work better.
None of the recommendations seem particularly radical (as befits the product of a commission of consumate insiders) and it seems unlikely that they would transform the culture of obstruction that has paralyzed the Congress, even it there were a chance that they could be implemented.
via Election Law Blog
None of the recommendations seem particularly radical (as befits the product of a commission of consumate insiders) and it seems unlikely that they would transform the culture of obstruction that has paralyzed the Congress, even it there were a chance that they could be implemented.
via Election Law Blog
I don't know what the roman numeral for zero is, but: all unwritten rules, practices, agreements, traditions and practices ascribed to "collegiality" are hereby null and void. If it's written down, it's in effect; if it's not, it doesn't exist.
posted by fatbird at 7:32 AM on October 17, 2014
posted by fatbird at 7:32 AM on October 17, 2014
I don't know what the roman numeral for zero is
Your best bet is "N" for nulla.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:37 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Your best bet is "N" for nulla.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:37 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
One of the parties in congress has the core belief that Government Does Not Work*, and thus, are highly incentivized to make sure that it Government Does Not Work. It's so obvious that I'm sure it's in here somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.
* St. Ronnie: "Government is the problem"
posted by DGStieber at 7:44 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
* St. Ronnie: "Government is the problem"
posted by DGStieber at 7:44 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
I would suggest further tinkering with the historically ill-conceived Senate body, limiting its scope to treaties, appointments, dismissal, etc., and giving them individual districts (which is relatively safe because one can't easily Gerrymander just two districts using a single boundary).
posted by Brian B. at 7:49 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 7:49 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
1 Get rid of one of your Houses. Or make the second one appointees. Or selected by lottery. Just not elected. Clogs everything up, and more opportunities for rich interests.
2 Make the President whoever can command a majority in the house, end direct elections. There's enough personality in politics. All this drama, then he or she can't get anything done.
3 So have only one election for your one house every five years or so, so everyone turns out for that and the legislature isn't captured by old rich white people (like me) who vote all the time.
Which means you need:
0 Don't start with a written constitution, it'll just make it harder to enact reforms you need in the future. Stop trying to manage from beyond the grave. Writing "hey, man, don't torture people!" is either unnecessary (good people won't) or pointless (bad people will ignore the rule.) See: War on Terror.
Why, yes, I'm British, why do you ask?
Good luck!
posted by alasdair at 8:03 AM on October 17, 2014 [10 favorites]
2 Make the President whoever can command a majority in the house, end direct elections. There's enough personality in politics. All this drama, then he or she can't get anything done.
3 So have only one election for your one house every five years or so, so everyone turns out for that and the legislature isn't captured by old rich white people (like me) who vote all the time.
Which means you need:
0 Don't start with a written constitution, it'll just make it harder to enact reforms you need in the future. Stop trying to manage from beyond the grave. Writing "hey, man, don't torture people!" is either unnecessary (good people won't) or pointless (bad people will ignore the rule.) See: War on Terror.
Why, yes, I'm British, why do you ask?
Good luck!
posted by alasdair at 8:03 AM on October 17, 2014 [10 favorites]
I understand the temptation to jump immediately to making snarky comments, but it is worth pointing out that the list of people responsible for the recommendations involves two Democrats (Tom Daschle, Barney Frank), and two Republicans (Bob Livingston, Trent Lott), and that the recommendations themselves are actually pretty reasonable.
Unlike "lol get rid of the senate", which would require a Constitutional Convention or string of Amendments to implement, and realistically is just slightly less likely to ever occur than the right-wingers' dreams of armed populist revolution (actually, probably less; there are fewer barriers to entry to starting a war, that at least has happened), pretty much everything that they're suggesting could be done via House and Senate rules changes.
Some of the changes are a bit inside baseball ("Ensure partial privileged status for measures that have gone through the committee process by providing that committee-reported amendments be considered germane tothe reported measure under cloture" isn't exactly bumper-sticker politics) but the intent of limiting obstructionism seems to be there. Trent Lott's quote under recommendation XIV is almost charming: "I was always offended that even after the committee had acted and the Senate as a whole had acted and voted affirmatively, one turkey could show up and say, 'It's not going to conference.'"
There are a few changes down towards the end of the list that seem pretty...ambitious...and a little handwavey. ("Eliminate gerrymandering", right. I'm sure everyone will get right on that. Maybe after the next election, though?) But even if you just implemented maybe the top ten recommendations, which are basically all internal to the House and Senate rules, it'd still be significant progress.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:36 AM on October 17, 2014 [9 favorites]
Unlike "lol get rid of the senate", which would require a Constitutional Convention or string of Amendments to implement, and realistically is just slightly less likely to ever occur than the right-wingers' dreams of armed populist revolution (actually, probably less; there are fewer barriers to entry to starting a war, that at least has happened), pretty much everything that they're suggesting could be done via House and Senate rules changes.
Some of the changes are a bit inside baseball ("Ensure partial privileged status for measures that have gone through the committee process by providing that committee-reported amendments be considered germane tothe reported measure under cloture" isn't exactly bumper-sticker politics) but the intent of limiting obstructionism seems to be there. Trent Lott's quote under recommendation XIV is almost charming: "I was always offended that even after the committee had acted and the Senate as a whole had acted and voted affirmatively, one turkey could show up and say, 'It's not going to conference.'"
There are a few changes down towards the end of the list that seem pretty...ambitious...and a little handwavey. ("Eliminate gerrymandering", right. I'm sure everyone will get right on that. Maybe after the next election, though?) But even if you just implemented maybe the top ten recommendations, which are basically all internal to the House and Senate rules, it'd still be significant progress.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:36 AM on October 17, 2014 [9 favorites]
"Ensure partial privileged status for measures that have gone through the committee process by providing that committee-reported amendments be considered germane tothe reported measure under cloture"
Even without Esquire's dodgy formatting, that's the sort of sentence which makes you go cross-eyed halfway through.
posted by sobarel at 8:43 AM on October 17, 2014
Even without Esquire's dodgy formatting, that's the sort of sentence which makes you go cross-eyed halfway through.
posted by sobarel at 8:43 AM on October 17, 2014
"No step is "remove all 535 sitting members." This makes it immediately and probably irrevocably flawed."This assumes that their replacements could conceivably be any better, which at this point is ridiculous. The root problem isn't the Congresscritters themselves but the dysfunctional and severely selective pressures that we put onto them as well as the much worse ones we allow them to be subject to. We want Congresspeople to have careers in Congress, and if they're good at their jobs the longer the better as they get a chance to improve with experience. We want legislators who know what the fuck they're doing, and have the ability last so that the real power doesn't shift from elected official to unelected professionals who would be lasting instead. The last thing we want is rich businessmen, talented party hacks, or crafty bureaucrats picking kings any more than they already do.
There are still quite a few Republicans who clearly want to restore good faith to the system and not as many Democrats as perhaps we'd like, we've got deeper problems than them.
posted by Blasdelb at 8:44 AM on October 17, 2014 [3 favorites]
No step is "remove all 535 sitting members." This makes it immediately and probably irrevocably flawed.
I'll never understand this sentiment post-Tea Party, which has ably demonstrated that bringing in a bunch of people with no experience can in many ways make things much worse.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:55 AM on October 17, 2014 [6 favorites]
I'll never understand this sentiment post-Tea Party, which has ably demonstrated that bringing in a bunch of people with no experience can in many ways make things much worse.
posted by Sangermaine at 8:55 AM on October 17, 2014 [6 favorites]
"No step is "remove all 535 sitting members." This makes it immediately and probably irrevocably flawed."
Missouri did this in effect by putting in very short term limits. What it amounts to is, the lobbyist are the *only* ones who know how things are supposed to be run, so the jackhole first-term idiots have to trust the lobbyists.
posted by notsnot at 8:56 AM on October 17, 2014 [11 favorites]
Missouri did this in effect by putting in very short term limits. What it amounts to is, the lobbyist are the *only* ones who know how things are supposed to be run, so the jackhole first-term idiots have to trust the lobbyists.
posted by notsnot at 8:56 AM on October 17, 2014 [11 favorites]
1 Get rid of one of your Houses. Or make the second one appointees. Or selected by lottery. Just not elected. Clogs everything up, and more opportunities for rich interests.
It's funny, this is precisely one of the main reasons why the 17th Amendment was passed to allow for direct election of Senators, that the body was a corrupt back room where rich interests bought and sold Senators.
Why, yes, I'm British, why do you ask?
Britain's system didn't seem to be much of an impediment to Thatcher's war on the poor, Blair's Iraq shenanigans, or Cameron's crusade to dismantle what Thatcher didn't get to...
posted by Sangermaine at 9:04 AM on October 17, 2014 [4 favorites]
It's funny, this is precisely one of the main reasons why the 17th Amendment was passed to allow for direct election of Senators, that the body was a corrupt back room where rich interests bought and sold Senators.
Why, yes, I'm British, why do you ask?
Britain's system didn't seem to be much of an impediment to Thatcher's war on the poor, Blair's Iraq shenanigans, or Cameron's crusade to dismantle what Thatcher didn't get to...
posted by Sangermaine at 9:04 AM on October 17, 2014 [4 favorites]
one promising reform is the "top-two primary", on next month's oregon ballot. one primary open to candidates of all parties, and the top two advance to the general, even if they are from the same party. theoretically, this will result in more moderate lawmakers as the centrists and the minority party in the district join forces to knock out the radical. the parties HATE this proposal, as it would transfer some of their power to individual voters. the dems always send me something telling me how to vote, and i will be breaking with them on this.
as far as getting rid of all 535, no. my congressman, peter defazio, is absolutely as good as could possibly be expected in this district.
posted by bruce at 9:04 AM on October 17, 2014
as far as getting rid of all 535, no. my congressman, peter defazio, is absolutely as good as could possibly be expected in this district.
posted by bruce at 9:04 AM on October 17, 2014
Britain's system didn't seem to be much of an impediment to Thatcher's war on the poor, Blair's Iraq shenanigans, or Cameron's crusade to dismantle what Thatcher didn't get to...
Having a more efficient governmental apparatus doesn't mean you get better policy.
posted by sobarel at 9:13 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Having a more efficient governmental apparatus doesn't mean you get better policy.
posted by sobarel at 9:13 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I understand the temptation to jump immediately to making snarky comments, but it is worth pointing out that the list of people responsible for the recommendations involves two Democrats (Tom Daschle, Barney Frank), and two Republicans (Bob Livingston, Trent Lott), and that the recommendations themselves are actually pretty reasonable.
No, this is still stupid fuckwitted idiocy grounded in vague assertion and ignoring decades of academic work. The first clue is that they bring up gerrymandering as something related to gridlock, which... no. Just no. You could certainly put together a panel whose recommendations you might take seriously -- some convex combination of Steve Smith, Barbara Sinclair, Dave Rohde, Sarah Binder, Frances Lee, Ryan van Houweling, Christian Grose, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal (they're a matched set), and so on. Smith, Binder, and Sinclair in particular probably know more about Congressional procedure *and* the effects of procedure than any living MC or the House and Senate parliamentarians. If you really feel like you need MCs to make the panel seem all official, David Price or especially Dan Lipinski know metric craptons more than people who've never been anything but practitioners. But they didn't. Instead they asked a few former MCs and a common or garden variety media dumbass, and they got what looks like a list of "Here are a few individual things that annoyed me." They couldn't even get a media talking-head who's remotely willing to discipline themselves with such minor details as what we know about the real world, like Klein on a good day.
In the broader setting, the whole thing is just dumb as a box of hammers. The reason we have "gridlock" now is that a critical proportion of the House Republicans just don't give the first flying fuck about making policy. It doesn't matter if committees can meet all morning without floor votes if the committee chairs don't give a shit about making policy, or if a majority of the majority doesn't give a shit about making policy. And the whole thing boils down to "decentralize authority," which as a prescription for reducing gridlock is as fundamentally asinine as fucking for virginity. Maybe next they can blether pointlessly about how to restore public trust in Congress as if the reasons for distrust weren't already well-understood and nigh on insoluble.
Some of the specifics are even stupider than the general level of slack-jawed yokelry the piece displays. Golly gee, the motion to recommit can be used to effectively kill a bill! You don't say! Maybe the entire fucking point of the motion to recommit is that it's the last opportunity to kill the bill without officially voting on the bill... And of course denying the majority leader the power to fill the tree will cause McConnell and his gang of fuckheads to say "Oh, yeah, that totally takes care of my concerns because I was totally going to propose serious policy-related amendments and not the string of unrelated crap I thought it would be fun to make the majority cast roll-calls on like I've been doing consistently for the last thousand years. I pinky-swear!"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:16 AM on October 17, 2014 [4 favorites]
No, this is still stupid fuckwitted idiocy grounded in vague assertion and ignoring decades of academic work. The first clue is that they bring up gerrymandering as something related to gridlock, which... no. Just no. You could certainly put together a panel whose recommendations you might take seriously -- some convex combination of Steve Smith, Barbara Sinclair, Dave Rohde, Sarah Binder, Frances Lee, Ryan van Houweling, Christian Grose, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal (they're a matched set), and so on. Smith, Binder, and Sinclair in particular probably know more about Congressional procedure *and* the effects of procedure than any living MC or the House and Senate parliamentarians. If you really feel like you need MCs to make the panel seem all official, David Price or especially Dan Lipinski know metric craptons more than people who've never been anything but practitioners. But they didn't. Instead they asked a few former MCs and a common or garden variety media dumbass, and they got what looks like a list of "Here are a few individual things that annoyed me." They couldn't even get a media talking-head who's remotely willing to discipline themselves with such minor details as what we know about the real world, like Klein on a good day.
In the broader setting, the whole thing is just dumb as a box of hammers. The reason we have "gridlock" now is that a critical proportion of the House Republicans just don't give the first flying fuck about making policy. It doesn't matter if committees can meet all morning without floor votes if the committee chairs don't give a shit about making policy, or if a majority of the majority doesn't give a shit about making policy. And the whole thing boils down to "decentralize authority," which as a prescription for reducing gridlock is as fundamentally asinine as fucking for virginity. Maybe next they can blether pointlessly about how to restore public trust in Congress as if the reasons for distrust weren't already well-understood and nigh on insoluble.
Some of the specifics are even stupider than the general level of slack-jawed yokelry the piece displays. Golly gee, the motion to recommit can be used to effectively kill a bill! You don't say! Maybe the entire fucking point of the motion to recommit is that it's the last opportunity to kill the bill without officially voting on the bill... And of course denying the majority leader the power to fill the tree will cause McConnell and his gang of fuckheads to say "Oh, yeah, that totally takes care of my concerns because I was totally going to propose serious policy-related amendments and not the string of unrelated crap I thought it would be fun to make the majority cast roll-calls on like I've been doing consistently for the last thousand years. I pinky-swear!"
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:16 AM on October 17, 2014 [4 favorites]
one promising reform is the "top-two primary", on next month's oregon ballot. one primary open to candidates of all parties, and the top two advance to the general, even if they are from the same party. theoretically, this will result in more moderate lawmakers
It's made no meaningful difference in California and hasn't brought anything remotely resembling effective governance to Louisiana in spite of their using it for decades.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:21 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
It's made no meaningful difference in California and hasn't brought anything remotely resembling effective governance to Louisiana in spite of their using it for decades.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:21 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
We need a third house of government to represent the 100 biggest corporations' interests, so we'd have
1) A House of Representatives based on population
2) A Senate to represent all states equally
and
3) A Real chamber of Commerce where the 200 biggest corporations can have their representatives weigh in on laws.
The way things are now, the lobbyists just hammer houses 1 and 2. If the Merchants had their own House, it would cut down on the corruption, in effect codifying it and making it work for a more just government.
I picked the number 200 because I felt 100 was too few and 300 a bit much.
It would be the first tricameral legislature in US history.
posted by Renoroc at 9:21 AM on October 17, 2014
1) A House of Representatives based on population
2) A Senate to represent all states equally
and
3) A Real chamber of Commerce where the 200 biggest corporations can have their representatives weigh in on laws.
The way things are now, the lobbyists just hammer houses 1 and 2. If the Merchants had their own House, it would cut down on the corruption, in effect codifying it and making it work for a more just government.
I picked the number 200 because I felt 100 was too few and 300 a bit much.
It would be the first tricameral legislature in US history.
posted by Renoroc at 9:21 AM on October 17, 2014
Shocking that ex-Congress critters have ideas about fixing the institution, now that they face no reelection and can suffer absolutely no consequences if they express their opinions.
posted by wittgenstein at 9:23 AM on October 17, 2014
posted by wittgenstein at 9:23 AM on October 17, 2014
The way things are now, the lobbyists just hammer houses 1 and 2. If the Merchants had their own House, it would cut down on the corruption, in effect codifying it and making it work for a more just government.
"Instead of fighting to fix the system, let's institutionalize the status quo and call it fixed!"
posted by JHarris at 9:35 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
"Instead of fighting to fix the system, let's institutionalize the status quo and call it fixed!"
posted by JHarris at 9:35 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
Please, please, please read the accompanying article before you come in here and make the same comment you'd make on any post about how Congress is broken.
I'll summarize it for you:
posted by savetheclocktower at 9:38 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
I'll summarize it for you:
- Nobody likes the douchebags (Cruz, Gohmert, Steve King, etc.) except for their fellow douchebags.
- Nearly all Congresspeople want to reach across the aisle (and some of them actually do so for low-profile things that are not likely to wind up on Fox News), but gerrymandering plus partisan primaries ends up punishing people for bipartisanship.
- Nobody seems to like the post-Citizens United world in which you have to constantly be fundraising just to keep your job.
- Some people are bitter that Harry Reid often “fills the tree” and doesn't allow any Republican amendments to be considered. Other people say that most of those amendments would just end up being bad-faith strategic amendments designed to make Democrats take bad-sounding votes.
posted by savetheclocktower at 9:38 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
This whole concept of this article is that there's something in the congressional rules that's creating gridlock. We've had periods of productive, effective governance with modern congressional rules in place. The modern era of gridlock did not arise from a rule change. Yes, the rules are currently being used to stop government activity, but that's a product of the parties motivations, not the rules. The power of the minority to protect its interests is generally thought of as a feature of the US system, not a bug.
Nearly all Congresspeople want to reach across the aisle (and some of them actually do so for low-profile things that are not likely to wind up on Fox News), but gerrymandering plus partisan primaries ends up punishing people for bipartisanship.
This does not cut both ways. The "gerrymandering + fundy primary challenger = incumbents getting forced out for being bipartisan" problem only affects one party, and it is inextricably tied to that party's platform and general strategy. I'm also opposed to gerrymandering*, but the representatives complaining about the gerrymandering that put them in office are bad faith actors, and should be treated as such.
*Within the general context of being opposed to our stupid first-past-the-post, winner takes all system. My favorite solution to gerrymandering is to have larger districts that send multiple representatives, and to allow the citizens to vote for multiple candidates. Like a district would send 4 candidates, and each voter got 3 votes on the ballot.
posted by DGStieber at 9:55 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Nearly all Congresspeople want to reach across the aisle (and some of them actually do so for low-profile things that are not likely to wind up on Fox News), but gerrymandering plus partisan primaries ends up punishing people for bipartisanship.
This does not cut both ways. The "gerrymandering + fundy primary challenger = incumbents getting forced out for being bipartisan" problem only affects one party, and it is inextricably tied to that party's platform and general strategy. I'm also opposed to gerrymandering*, but the representatives complaining about the gerrymandering that put them in office are bad faith actors, and should be treated as such.
*Within the general context of being opposed to our stupid first-past-the-post, winner takes all system. My favorite solution to gerrymandering is to have larger districts that send multiple representatives, and to allow the citizens to vote for multiple candidates. Like a district would send 4 candidates, and each voter got 3 votes on the ballot.
posted by DGStieber at 9:55 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
It could be argued that while the rules existed and had the potential to create gridlock, they did not because people respected the basic idea of governance. There were a set of unspoken guidelines and rules that kept the system going, roughly. Plus for years the odd overlay of Southern Democrats and Northeastern Republicans. But the Southern Realignment happened, and the shit genie is out of the bottle, so a system that worked okay(ish) no longer works. That's both the fault of the system and the fault of the people (and the people and institutions that put them there). Further, it's getting worse because of the system and rules that encourage and reward this behavior.
posted by X-Himy at 10:02 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by X-Himy at 10:02 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
> the representatives complaining about the gerrymandering that put them in office are bad faith actors, and should be treated as such.
I don't get this part. You're saying that it's hypocritical for someone to bad-mouth gerrymandering if they got elected to Congress? How are we ever supposed to get rid of gerrymandering, then?
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:02 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't get this part. You're saying that it's hypocritical for someone to bad-mouth gerrymandering if they got elected to Congress? How are we ever supposed to get rid of gerrymandering, then?
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:02 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'll never understand this sentiment post-Tea Party, which has ably demonstrated that bringing in a bunch of people with no experience can in many ways make things much worse.
There's a big difference between moneyed interests putting in a bunch of idiotic ideologues to fulfill their own interest, and the idea of ¡Que se vayan todos!
posted by graymouser at 10:05 AM on October 17, 2014
There's a big difference between moneyed interests putting in a bunch of idiotic ideologues to fulfill their own interest, and the idea of ¡Que se vayan todos!
posted by graymouser at 10:05 AM on October 17, 2014
xenophobe, as a native californian i disagree wrt california. the lege seems more moderate as of late, and the most reliable annual flashpoint, the budget, where legislators routinely transgressed the constitutional deadline when their chamber leaders "stopped the clock", sometimes resulting in california being temporarily unable to pay its bills and resort to issuing warrants, hasn't happened recently. this may be because top-two primary has installed democratic supermajorities (and there's another reform i propose, supermajority requirements are inherently undemocratic, and the US senate has a de facto 60 vote requirement for most things). it may also be due to the reapportionment reform, to a panel instead of the lege itself. now if only the dems can prevent any more of their senators from being convicted of felonies...
i can't speak to louisiana, never been there, except that it's reputed to be the most corrupt state in the union, making places like new jersey look positively athenian by comparison. the fastest way to make something happen in louisiana is, bring a suitcase with $300,000 in cash, but don't get caught! the 49ers might have won several more superbowls...
posted by bruce at 10:05 AM on October 17, 2014
i can't speak to louisiana, never been there, except that it's reputed to be the most corrupt state in the union, making places like new jersey look positively athenian by comparison. the fastest way to make something happen in louisiana is, bring a suitcase with $300,000 in cash, but don't get caught! the 49ers might have won several more superbowls...
posted by bruce at 10:05 AM on October 17, 2014
xenophobe, as a native californian i disagree wrt california.
That's fine, but people have actually examined this (Eric McGee and Seth Masket and IIRC some other people) and found that, when you actually look at data, there's little or no effect.
the most reliable annual flashpoint, the budget, where legislators routinely transgressed the constitutional deadline when their chamber leaders "stopped the clock", sometimes resulting in california being temporarily unable to pay its bills and resort to issuing warrants, hasn't happened recently
This is almost certainly just because CA eliminated their 2/3 requirement to pass a bill that raises taxes or spends money, so now the Democratic majorities can just pass things instead of the old system which required a few Republican co-conspirators.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:19 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
That's fine, but people have actually examined this (Eric McGee and Seth Masket and IIRC some other people) and found that, when you actually look at data, there's little or no effect.
the most reliable annual flashpoint, the budget, where legislators routinely transgressed the constitutional deadline when their chamber leaders "stopped the clock", sometimes resulting in california being temporarily unable to pay its bills and resort to issuing warrants, hasn't happened recently
This is almost certainly just because CA eliminated their 2/3 requirement to pass a bill that raises taxes or spends money, so now the Democratic majorities can just pass things instead of the old system which required a few Republican co-conspirators.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:19 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
and the shit genie is out of the bottle
(Picks up curio) "Wow, you have an actual genie bottle! Imma make a wish!"
"No, don't rub that! It..." (looks uncomfortably at bathroom) "...won't go well. In fact, you might want to put that down and use some disinfectant."
Anyway, while I understand the sentiment behind greymouser's first comment, the fact is there are good congresspeople. But even the very good ones if you search through their voting record long enough, you can find something where they voted cluelessly, and that has a way of becoming a bludgeon against them, loudly trumpeted as an example that they're just like all the rest. Because a long history of sane and competent action can be nullified easily with the loud repetition in the media of that one time they caucused with the poop brigade.
posted by JHarris at 10:47 AM on October 17, 2014
(Picks up curio) "Wow, you have an actual genie bottle! Imma make a wish!"
"No, don't rub that! It..." (looks uncomfortably at bathroom) "...won't go well. In fact, you might want to put that down and use some disinfectant."
Anyway, while I understand the sentiment behind greymouser's first comment, the fact is there are good congresspeople. But even the very good ones if you search through their voting record long enough, you can find something where they voted cluelessly, and that has a way of becoming a bludgeon against them, loudly trumpeted as an example that they're just like all the rest. Because a long history of sane and competent action can be nullified easily with the loud repetition in the media of that one time they caucused with the poop brigade.
posted by JHarris at 10:47 AM on October 17, 2014
>You're saying that it's hypocritical for someone to bad-mouth gerrymandering if they got elected to Congress?
The gerrymandered districts are the ones most susceptible to primary challenges from the extremist wing, because those are the districts in which the primaries aren't especially concerned with "electability" (it being a foregone conclusion that the party will win the general election). These are the representatives I was talking about. I wasn't attempting to impugn representatives coming from reasonably laid out districts. Sorry, that was vague.
posted by DGStieber at 11:12 AM on October 17, 2014
The gerrymandered districts are the ones most susceptible to primary challenges from the extremist wing, because those are the districts in which the primaries aren't especially concerned with "electability" (it being a foregone conclusion that the party will win the general election). These are the representatives I was talking about. I wasn't attempting to impugn representatives coming from reasonably laid out districts. Sorry, that was vague.
posted by DGStieber at 11:12 AM on October 17, 2014
There's a big difference between moneyed interests putting in a bunch of idiotic ideologues to fulfill their own interest, and the idea of ¡Que se vayan todos!
I don't think there is. It's not like there's a group of philosopher-statesman with all the resources they need waiting in the wings for the incumbents to be unseated.
If the current crop is kicked out, who fills the void? It's going to be the people who are motivated with a motivated base (the ideologues) with access to backing (the moneyed interests).
posted by Sangermaine at 11:22 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I don't think there is. It's not like there's a group of philosopher-statesman with all the resources they need waiting in the wings for the incumbents to be unseated.
If the current crop is kicked out, who fills the void? It's going to be the people who are motivated with a motivated base (the ideologues) with access to backing (the moneyed interests).
posted by Sangermaine at 11:22 AM on October 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
i can't speak to louisiana, never been there, except that it's reputed to be the most corrupt state in the union, making places like new jersey look positively athenian by comparison. the fastest way to make something happen in louisiana is, bring a suitcase with $300,000 in cash, but don't get caught! the 49ers might have won several more superbowls...
The governor in question was elected because in the top-two primary he got 34% of the vote and David Duke got 32% of the vote. (The sitting governor finished in a close third.)
So you may or may not get more moderate candidates.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:51 PM on October 17, 2014
The governor in question was elected because in the top-two primary he got 34% of the vote and David Duke got 32% of the vote. (The sitting governor finished in a close third.)
So you may or may not get more moderate candidates.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 2:51 PM on October 17, 2014
The US system was designed to be gridlocked. Madison was pretty explicit about that. There are at least three major veto points in place by design: the House median, the Senate median, and the President (plus the supermajority requirements for Amendments). In 1803 we added a fourth (the Supreme Court), and in recent times we've changed the Senate veto to the 40th percentile. So while it's certainly possible to tweak the rules to reduce the effect of these vetoes, the veto points themselves are the main reason it's so easy to block stuff. But there's no reason this veto needs to come from the Republican or conservative side. When we have two branches run by Tea Party Republicans who are trying to pass laws boosting deportation, religion in the classroom, restrictions on women's rights, and massive tax cuts defunding the federal government, you can bet that the Democrats will become the party of No.* It has nothing to do with the parties, it's just how the system is designed. Which doesn't mean it can't be alleviated with tweaks like these, many of which are perfectly fine ideas for fixing in particular the insanities of the Senate. But it's just not going to do much on the larger scale, particularly when the policy preferences of the two sides are so vastly different.
* Heck, in only a month, if the Dems lose the Senate, they will already become the party of No, actively filibustering all the bills that the House has been sending over that have heretofore been quietly killed by Reid.
posted by chortly at 3:48 PM on October 17, 2014
* Heck, in only a month, if the Dems lose the Senate, they will already become the party of No, actively filibustering all the bills that the House has been sending over that have heretofore been quietly killed by Reid.
posted by chortly at 3:48 PM on October 17, 2014
When we have two branches run by Tea Party Republicans who are trying to pass laws boosting deportation, religion in the classroom, restrictions on women's rights, and massive tax cuts defunding the federal government, you can bet that the Democrats will become the party of No.*
They certainly will now that the Republicans have laid the big stinking precedent for it right in the middle of Congress! Or are they to be rewarded for keeping the national fucking status quo mired almost where it was eight years ago by allowing them to push it rightward with the ease they were used to under Bush?!
posted by JHarris at 4:29 PM on October 17, 2014
They certainly will now that the Republicans have laid the big stinking precedent for it right in the middle of Congress! Or are they to be rewarded for keeping the national fucking status quo mired almost where it was eight years ago by allowing them to push it rightward with the ease they were used to under Bush?!
posted by JHarris at 4:29 PM on October 17, 2014
I think the point is that the minority party, whichever it happens to be, will always be the "party of no" and will be called obstructionists by the majority party, because the system is designed to allow a minority to block actions by a majority, within certain limits. This is arguably undemocratic, but it's certainly by design and exists for some fairly good reasons, which will probably become more obvious to those on the left of the political spectrum if the Republicans achieve a legislative-branch majority again sometime soon.
"Streamlining" the legislative process only seems like a good idea when your preferred party is in power. When it's the other guys, it looks a lot like greasing the tracks that lead straight to Hell.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:16 PM on October 18, 2014
"Streamlining" the legislative process only seems like a good idea when your preferred party is in power. When it's the other guys, it looks a lot like greasing the tracks that lead straight to Hell.
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:16 PM on October 18, 2014
« Older NASA sounds | ohhno ima barfed onna shoes Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by graymouser at 7:26 AM on October 17, 2014 [2 favorites]