sparkling husband primitive fillibusters

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8995883

Oh my.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Aug-22-10 04:22 PM
DIDN'T DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Original message

Can we discuss that filibuster thing? And maybe term limits, too.

The filibuster is part and parcel of the Senate. The Senate, it is said, is where good bills go to die. The Senate, it seems to many, is where ossified politicians go to work for little more than the perpetuation of their continuance in office.

Every state gets two Senators. Charts and graphs abound that show how the Senate heavily favors, and artificially magnifies, the influence of small populations. Wyoming is the equal of New York, Illinois, or California. A senator from a state with less than 1,000,000 in population can stop a bill favored by the senators representing scores of millions.

If a corporate interest wishes to kill a bill, he need only buy one or two senators. That's pretty damned cheap.

The worst abuse, however, is the modern filibuster. One senator can say "gee . . . . I duuno" and a bill is effectively dead.

We hear that the filibuster saved us during the reign of terror that was the cheney presidency. I content that what we saw was simply the flip side of the general duplicity that is the Senate. I do, indeed, think the two parties, specifically in the Senate, are simply mirror images of the other. The filibuster allows each side to shrug and point to the "opposition" as the reason this or that did or didn't pass. It provides cover for the complacent cowards that have been there for 16, or 32, or more years, fat, dumb, and happy suckling on the public teat as they are.

It seems to me that its long past time to remove the political shield of the filibuster - the cover for inactivity and do-nothingness.

And while we're talking about the Senate, given the inherent unfairness of the power of the minority over the majority, let's get some term limits, too. Make the people who go there a tiny bit more likely to go there to serve the people they represent, rather than simply to serve time and then retire.

And you know, taking away their retirement benefits wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

And in the Senate dining room, maybe we can start setting their places with road maps as placements, each with their home town circled. Just as a reminder. Ya think?

T Wolf  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-22-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. The unfair and destructive influence of the small states versus the big states is the worst thing about the governmental setup that we are stuck with.

This will never change because the little ones will never give up their power.

I do not see a solution other than breaking up the US into smaller, more manageable units. And while doing so, go to a truly democratic arrangement of allocating representation.

This version of experimental governing is done - it does not work.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Aug-22-10 04:54 PM
DIDN'T DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #1

9. You're right, of course, that we'll likely never change that part of our structure, but we *might* 

.... be able to change how we deal with it.

Abq_Sarah (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-22-10 05:01 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #1

11. Each state is regarded as equal

By the Fed. That's why each state has two senators. They represent the interests of the states (at least in theory).

I really don't want to go to a system where states with small population totals are considered inferior and less worthy of representation.

demosincebirth  (1000+ posts)         Sun Aug-22-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
 
14. They should be less representative, they have less people. Take Wyoming vs California. Should they have equal votes in the senate?

madinmaryland  (1000+ posts)        Sun Aug-22-10 06:44 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #1

15. You must be referring to Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Hawaii.

Just a guess.

pampango  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-22-10 04:41 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Original message

2. I'd rather see nonpartisan districts that produced competitive elections rather than the gerrymandered "safe" districts that ensures noncompetitive elections.

In our part of Ohio we have a succession of republican legislators on the state level. They cycle in and out due to term limits, but the content doesn't change. If we had a fairly-drawn district I wouldn't mind if someone got reelected repeatedly.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Aug-22-10 04:50 PM
DIDN'T DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #2

6. That would apply to the House. The Senate is always statewide.

Bitwit1234  (1000+ posts)     Sun Aug-22-10 04:54 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #2

10. Gerrymandered districts is correct that is the only reason people like Bachmann get to come back year after year. BUT thank goodness this would be the last time she wins, IF, she does. Since Minnesota is losing a representative, her district is being drawn out of existence. Divided between two Democratic districts. Think she could win those...hell no.

thelordofhell (898 posts)      Sun Aug-22-10 04:42 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Original message

3. Yet another "Term Limits" garbage post

Hey buddy, you want to give a politician term limits? VOTE THEM OUT!!

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Aug-22-10 04:51 PM
DIDN'T DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #3

7. Thank you for that thoughtful and cogent response. It really helped focus my thoughts

Codeine  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-22-10 04:46 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Original message

5. We already have term limits. We call them elections.

If my state wants to keep a Senator in place for thirty years then we should have that right. Term limits are the very antithesis of democracy -- they are the hallmark of reactionary know-nothingness.

Stinky The Clown  (1000+ posts)        Sun Aug-22-10 04:53 PM
DIDN'T DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Reply #5

8. Convince me of that

You closed off discussion with your post's tone.

Hopefully you'll come back and add something thoughtful to support your view and maybe change a mind.

AlinPA  (1000+ posts)      Sun Aug-22-10 06:53 PM
FORGOT TO DONATE TO SKINS'S ISLAND!!!
Response to Original message

16. We might need the filibuster if these predictions hold that we lose the senate in Nov.

[JohnnyReb]

Translation: The DUmmies want about 5 blue states to run the country in the ground.

I love the electoral college and the way things are right now.....the DUmmies don't want to have Air Force One to even cast a shadow when it passes over flyover country.

[Carl]

T Wolf  (1000+ posts)       Sun Aug-22-10 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. The unfair and destructive influence of the small states versus the big states is the worst thing about the governmental setup that we are stuck with.

This will never change because the little ones will never give up their power.

I do not see a solution other than breaking up the US into smaller, more manageable units. And while doing so, go to a truly democratic arrangement of allocating representation.

This version of experimental governing is done - it does not work.

Thankfully James Madison and the rest of the founders saw you authoritarians on the horizon and neutered you on the spot.