If they do away with the filibuster in the senate

[Crazyhole]

How is it really any different than the House anymore? They are already elected by popular vote, which wasn't the original intent. Get rid of the filibuster and it seems like you may just as well add them to the house because it's become essentially the same thing.

 

[Vote for Rusty in 2022]

If they do away with the Filibuster then that means they can federalize elections and cheat until kingdom come.

 

[Crazyhole]

Well if that wasn't a mic-drop moment, I don't know what is

 

[Nautiknight]

If that happens we are so screwed as a nation. I truly wish we could repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate back to being appointed by the state legislatures. It was originally in the Constitution the Senate to be appointed as a check and balance of state rights and control over the Federal Government.. Remember, the States created the federal government to do specific things the states were poorly equipped to do which was largely national defense and dealing with foreign nations. if the filibuster goes the balance of power shifts dramatically the left will destroy this nation within 20 years. All you have to do is watch how Venezuela was ruined in 20 years by Marxist economic take over of oil production, farming and tge private sector in general . Couple the Marxist economic policy with their social spending it drove Venezuela into a canyon, not a ditch.

 

[Boosted87]

If that happens we are so screwed as a nation. I truly wish we could repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate back to being appointed by the state legislatures. It was originally in the Constitution the Senate to be appointed as a check and balance of state rights and control over the Federal Government.. Remember, the States created the federal government to do specific things the states were poorly equipped to do which was largely national defense and dealing with foreign nations. if the filibuster goes the balance of power shifts dramatically the left will destroy this nation within 20 years. All you have to do is watch how Venezuela was ruined in 20 years by Marxist economic take over of oil production, farming and tge private sector in general . Couple the Marxist economic policy with their social spending it drove Venezuela into a canyon, not a ditch.

Returning the power to the state legislature would simply amplify the motivation to gerrymander at the state level. Many states that are purple in state wide elections have massive single-party advantages due to gerrymandering in their state legislatures. Making senate seats a gerrymandering contest at the state level would only make our problems worse.

What we should do is have everyone emulate Alaska's process for electing senators. Take power away from the party bases (and extremists) and elect candidates that appeal broadly to the electorate.

 

[Boosted87]

To me the answer to this is obvious. Talking fillibusters.

If a Senator (or group of Senators) want to completely freeze the senate for weeks on end with 24 hours a day of talking - great! Let's do it. Remember - the Senate only requires a simple majority to pass something. The 60 vote rule is to "end debate" - except no one has to actually be debating it.

It's just too easy to be obstructionist in this system because the near term risk/reward for the minority party is too powerful. Republicans intend to run on the fact that Biden didn't get anything done. Perhaps that works and Republicans win everything back. Then Democrats do the same and run on the fact the Republicans couldn't get anything done. It's a pointless circle.

We'd be far better off if the majority party could implement policy and then elections measure the success of that policy. Successful policy is rewarded and bad policy is punished. Talking filibusters would allow most things to get to a vote eventually. The minority party would be far more willing to take a small victory (minor compromise) and allow things to get to a vote.

 

[Crazyhole]

To me the answer to this is obvious. Talking fillibusters.

If a Senator (or group of Senators) want to completely freeze the senate for weeks on end with 24 hours a day of talking - great! Let's do it. Remember - the Senate only requires a simple majority to pass something. The 60 vote rule is to "end debate" - except no one has to actually be debating it.

It's just too easy to be obstructionist in this system because the near term risk/reward for the minority party is too powerful. Republicans intend to run on the fact that Biden didn't get anything done. Perhaps that works and Republicans win everything back. Then Democrats do the same and run on the fact the Republicans couldn't get anything done. It's a pointless circle.

We'd be far better off if the majority party could implement policy and then elections measure the success of that policy. Successful policy is rewarded and bad policy is punished. Talking filibusters would allow most things to get to a vote eventually. The minority party would be far more willing to take a small victory (minor compromise) and allow things to get to a vote.

Then what would be the structural difference between the senate and the house? Why would we need 2 separate bodies.

 

[Crazyhole]

This is a losing issue for the dems, so why are they pushing it so hard?

 

[chemmie]

If that happens we are so screwed as a nation. I truly wish we could repeal the 17th amendment and return the Senate back to being appointed by the state legislatures. It was originally in the Constitution the Senate to be appointed as a check and balance of state rights and control over the Federal Government.. Remember, the States created the federal government to do specific things the states were poorly equipped to do which was largely national defense and dealing with foreign nations. if the filibuster goes the balance of power shifts dramatically the left will destroy this nation within 20 years. All you have to do is watch how Venezuela was ruined in 20 years by Marxist economic take over of oil production, farming and tge private sector in general . Couple the Marxist economic policy with their social spending it drove Venezuela into a canyon, not a ditch.

Loloo ok lolololollololololol ok o o oolo oolo l l ol ol ooloololoolol!!

 

[Boosted87]

Then what would be the structural difference between the senate and the house? Why would we need 2 separate bodies.

The filibuster has nothing to do with that at all. If it did, wouldn't the filibuster be enshrined in the Constitution like the real structural differences are? Population vs state representations - judicial confirmations - budgetary responsibilities - etc. The Constitution does specifically define certain super majority requirements like conviction on impeachment, treaty ratification, and Constitutional amendments.

The talking fillibuster is the OG here. There was no rule to end debate so senators figured out quickly they could just "talk a bill to death." This could be done by a lone Senator. So in 1917 the cloture rule was added to end debate with a 2/3 majority. In 1975 that was changed to 3/5 majority.

The other issue is that prior to the '70's, the Senate rules allowed only one thing to be considered at a time. So a fillibuster would grind all business to a halt. They changed that so they could have multiple things pending at once, which makes the process more politically viable for the minority since other things can get done.

So basically, this is all just enshrined tradition managed over the years in an effort to allow the Senate to get things done. Hence the removal of the judicial requirement in recent years. The tradition is really to change the rules as needed to get crap done.

U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture | Historical Overview

www.senate.gov

 

[goodknightfl]

I like it better when they can't get crap done.

 

[Crazyhole]

Is it ironic that the dems used the filibuster yesterday to stop sanctions on Russia? It seems ironic.