LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Reform the Filibuster

Cubantripod said:
Why? We have too many bad and useless laws on the books. You don't have to sell people on good ideas. If a filibuster can stop you, then your idea sucks.
Click to expand...

That is doubtful, given the history of its usage to block civil-rights legislation, or, more recently, to block a commission to investigate 1/6.
 
Cubantripod said:
Why? We have too many bad and useless laws on the books. You don't have to sell people on good ideas. If a filibuster can stop you, then your idea sucks.
Click to expand...


Another sign your idea sucks: an inability to win a free and fair election.
 
Wrong Element said:
Another sign your idea sucks: an inability to win a free and fair election.
Click to expand...

Hence why are elections aren't free and fair. If they were, the Republicans and Democrats would have gone the way of the dodo bird. The only way either party can win is by shutting out others.
 
Cubantripod said:
Why? We have too many bad and useless laws on the books. You don't have to sell people on good ideas. If a filibuster can stop you, then your idea sucks.
Click to expand...

The fillonuster.exists.to give the minority a chance to plead their case to the people. The problem right now is they have cut off the work needed to be done toake your case...now you just have to threaten it to win..

The reform restores the minority's position
 
Cubantripod said:
Hence why are elections aren't free and fair. If they were, the Republicans and Democrats would have gone the way of the dodo bird. The only way either party can win is by shutting out others.
Click to expand...

No malfeasance is necessary. A first-past-the-post winner-take-all single-member-district system of representation naturally produces a two-party system. If you don't like that, there's always proportional representation, which has various forms.
 
At the beginning, both houses of Congress had an "unlimited debate" rule. The HoR abolished it when it became so numerous the rule was unwieldy, but the Senate never did. It could, it is only a rule of procedure, not in the Constitution, which says only that each house shall make its own rules.
 
pecksniff said:
No malfeasance is necessary. A first-past-the-post winner-take-all single-member-district system of representation naturally produces a two-party system. If you don't like that, there's always proportional representation, which has various forms.
Click to expand...

On that note, check out FairVote -- an organization which originally, at its founding in 1992, was called "Citizens for Proportional Representation," but has branched out into other reform-areas.
 
pecksniff said:
At the beginning, both houses of Congress had an "unlimited debate" rule. The HoR abolished it when it became so numerous the rule was unwieldy, but the Senate never did. It could, it is only a rule of procedure, not in the Constitution, which says only that each house shall make its own rules.
Click to expand...

This is as much bullshit as "the founding fathers.." argument.

Who cares what they did back then...the idea is why....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Abolish the Senate filibuster
Replies
2
Views
99
Bray123
B
RoryN
Economy & Epstein: Dems have their blueprint for 2026 / 2028
2
Replies
32
Views
488
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
Rightguide
It's Time For The DOJ To Go After Bill Barr
3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
1K
Hel_Books
H
P
What happens to MAGA after Trump?
2
Replies
29
Views
629
eric_erosfan
eric_erosfan
P
Ranked-choice voting
Replies
5
Views
69
nowisthetime
nowisthetime
Back
Top