Majority Rule: The Thermonuclear Option

[What if...?]

Well somehow we have to put the trumpertards back under the rock they crawled out from under!

We just need to coat trumps ass with a coat of finely ground fentanyl.

The ass kissing will take care of the rest.

 

[What if...?]

Why not just the simple majority? The way everything else is decided.

Because they are the minority.

 

[AGENT J]

Eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to permit legislation to pass by a simple majority is sometimes called “the nuclear option.” That is insufficient. If you’re really interested in ending the tyranny of the minority, go for the thermonuclear option.

The plan assumes a Democratic President and a unified Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, with members willing to sacrifice their own seats as necessary.

Start with the Democratic Senate packing an expanded U.S. Supreme Court with new members nominated by the President who will interpret the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to expel states from the Union. It doesn’t matter if that is the “wrong” interpretation. There is no higher court to overrule their decision. Congress then expels all states except for those with Democratic governors and legislatures, which presumably would also have a majority Democratic representation in Congress.

The new, much smaller Congress then proposes constitutional amendments that would replace the electoral college with a popular vote and eliminate the Senate, leaving only a House whose representation is based solely on population; and provides for Congress (the House of Representatives) to draw all congressional districts, determine voter eligibility and other rules for the election of members of Congress and the President and Vice President.

All powers previously reserved to the Senate would be conferred to the House.

The amendments are sent to the Democratic-controlled states where they are quickly approved. The non-Democratic states are readmitted to the Union only if their legislatures pass binding resolutions stating they will submit to the revised constitution.

 

[Allan]

Are we just making up random scenarios now?

You can do anything with a magic wand.

 

[Allan]

Eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to permit legislation to pass by a simple majority is sometimes called “the nuclear option.” That is insufficient. If you’re really interested in ending the tyranny of the minority, go for the thermonuclear option.

The plan assumes a Democratic President and a unified Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, with members willing to sacrifice their own seats as necessary.

Start with the Democratic Senate packing an expanded U.S. Supreme Court with new members nominated by the President who will interpret the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to expel states from the Union. It doesn’t matter if that is the “wrong” interpretation. There is no higher court to overrule their decision. Congress then expels all states except for those with Democratic governors and legislatures, which presumably would also have a majority Democratic representation in Congress.

The new, much smaller Congress then proposes constitutional amendments that would replace the electoral college with a popular vote and eliminate the Senate, leaving only a House whose representation is based solely on population; and provides for Congress (the House of Representatives) to draw all congressional districts, determine voter eligibility and other rules for the election of members of Congress and the President and Vice President.

All powers previously reserved to the Senate would be conferred to the House.

The amendments are sent to the Democratic-controlled states where they are quickly approved. The non-Democratic states are readmitted to the Union only if their legislatures pass binding resolutions stating they will submit to the revised constitution.

Isn't authoritarianism fun!

 

[NOVA66]

Is America the only free country where a minority can be elected President?

 

[Allan]

Trump is elite in wealth only.

In all other respects he's quite common.

 

[Allan]

Is America the only free country where a minority can be elected President?

Parliamentary democracies like Canada it's possible. Trudeau is PM despite not having a majority in Parliament.

 

[AJG]

Eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to permit legislation to pass by a simple majority is sometimes called “the nuclear option.” That is insufficient. If you’re really interested in ending the tyranny of the minority, go for the thermonuclear option.

The plan assumes a Democratic President and a unified Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, with members willing to sacrifice their own seats as necessary.

Start with the Democratic Senate packing an expanded U.S. Supreme Court with new members nominated by the President who will interpret the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to expel states from the Union. It doesn’t matter if that is the “wrong” interpretation. There is no higher court to overrule their decision. Congress then expels all states except for those with Democratic governors and legislatures, which presumably would also have a majority Democratic representation in Congress.

The new, much smaller Congress then proposes constitutional amendments that would replace the electoral college with a popular vote and eliminate the Senate, leaving only a House whose representation is based solely on population; and provides for Congress (the House of Representatives) to draw all congressional districts, determine voter eligibility and other rules for the election of members of Congress and the President and Vice President.

All powers previously reserved to the Senate would be conferred to the House.

The amendments are sent to the Democratic-controlled states where they are quickly approved. The non-Democratic states are readmitted to the Union only if their legislatures pass binding resolutions stating they will submit to the revised constitution.

When I hear "nuclear option", I usually think of an absolute last resort that would likely result in something that would benefit almost no one, kind of like how a nuclear war would result in mutually assured destruction. What you described sounds pretty much like that.

 

[Glitch]

In other words, you want to end democracy.

Okay.

Forget it.

btw, "with members willing to sacrifice their own seats as necessary". LOL!! That'll never happen. Democratic Elites WANT their gravy train. There's no way they will be willing to sacrifice their own seats.

What I like most about this proposal is that Democrats don't seem to learn from their mistakes. Senator Reed eliminated the filibuster with regard to Supreme Court nominations, hoping to gain an advantage with Obama as President. Only to lose the Senate to Republicans that year that led the way for three conservative Justices to be appointed by Trump without a filibuster by Democrats. It completely backfired on him.

Democrats aren't very bright, if they can't think far enough ahead to understand how Republicans can use their own plot against them when the GOP gain control.

 

[The Mark]

Eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to permit legislation to pass by a simple majority is sometimes called “the nuclear option.” That is insufficient. If you’re really interested in ending the tyranny of the minority, go for the thermonuclear option.

The plan assumes a Democratic President and a unified Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, with members willing to sacrifice their own seats as necessary.

Start with the Democratic Senate packing an expanded U.S. Supreme Court with new members nominated by the President who will interpret the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to expel states from the Union. It doesn’t matter if that is the “wrong” interpretation. There is no higher court to overrule their decision. Congress then expels all states except for those with Democratic governors and legislatures, which presumably would also have a majority Democratic representation in Congress.

The new, much smaller Congress then proposes constitutional amendments that would replace the electoral college with a popular vote and eliminate the Senate, leaving only a House whose representation is based solely on population; and provides for Congress (the House of Representatives) to draw all congressional districts, determine voter eligibility and other rules for the election of members of Congress and the President and Vice President.

All powers previously reserved to the Senate would be conferred to the House.

The amendments are sent to the Democratic-controlled states where they are quickly approved. The non-Democratic states are readmitted to the Union only if their legislatures pass binding resolutions stating they will submit to the revised constitution.

You could not convince 1% of the current democratic party to do that.
It's about equally likely that the Republicans would do it in their favor.

The filibuster was put in place to give racists the ability to prevent passage of bills they didn't like despite their being in the minority.
**** the filibuster, get rid of it entirely.

The constitution already requires a supermajority of congress to impeach a president, declare them unfit for office, and pass an amendment to said constitution.
It's bullshit that we have a rule not made law that has the effect of law - the Filibuster rule, making a slightly less than supermajority (60%) be required to overrule someone who decides to formally complains hard enough.
If we want that shit, we should pass a constitutional amendment making it law, and if we don't want it as law it should not be a rule.

 

[RobertU]

I have sent my proposal to The Squad: Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanne Pressley.

 

[mrjurrs]

Eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to permit legislation to pass by a simple m issueajority is sometimes called “the nuclear option.” That is insufficient. If you’re really interested in ending the tyranny of the minority, go for the thermonuclear option.

The plan assumes a Democratic President and a unified Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, with members willing to sacrifice their own seats as necessary.

Start with the Democratic Senate packing an expanded U.S. Supreme Court with new members nominated by the President who will interpret the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to expel states from the Union. It doesn’t matter if that is the “wrong” interpretation. There is no higher court to overrule their decision. Congress then expels all states except for those with Democratic governors and legislatures, which presumably would also have a majority Democratic representation in Congress.

The new, much smaller Congress then proposes constitutional amendments that would replace the electoral college with a popular vote and eliminate the Senate, leaving only a House whose representation is based solely on population; and provides for Congress (the House of Representatives) to draw all congressional districts, determine voter eligibility and other rules for the election of members of Congress and the President and Vice President.

All powers previously reserved to the Senate would be conferred to the House.

The amendments are sent to the Democratic-controlled states where they are quickly approved. The non-Democratic states are readmitted to the Union only if their legislatures pass binding resolutions stating they will submit to the revised constitution.

Eliminate the filibuster. It is only a Senate rule, not a constitutional issue. The Senate can no longer claim to be the world's most deliberative body so let's get some stuff done. The reason that nothing gets done is that nobody has to go on record.

 

[RobertU]

Consider my proposal as a case of calling in the Geek Squad to delete the MAGA malware, then rebooting the system and replacing the old, clunky USA with the new, faster USA 2.0.

 

[Rich2018]

Sounds like authoritarian single-party state power grabbing and an end to democracy...

Maybe the people who support this should just move to other single-party states like China, Vietnam, Russia, etc?

No, it's how most Representative Democracies work

Though perhaps, the USA is not mature enough politically for it yet

The USA also needs madatory voting as practiced in countries like Australia.

 

[fmw]

Eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to permit legislation to pass by a simple majority is sometimes called “the nuclear option.” That is insufficient. If you’re really interested in ending the tyranny of the minority, go for the thermonuclear option.

Anything that makes legislation harder reduces partisan legislation which, of course, is the desired goal of the founders.

 

[fmw]

The USA also needs madatory voting as practiced in countries like Australia.

Yup, nothing like authoritarianism.

 

[eohrnberger]

What I like most about this proposal is that Democrats don't seem to learn from their mistakes. Senator Reed eliminated the filibuster with regard to Supreme Court nominations, hoping to gain an advantage with Obama as President. Only to lose the Senate to Republicans that year that led the way for three conservative Justices to be appointed by Trump without a filibuster by Democrats. It completely backfired on him.

Often, it is best to allow those who are bound and determined to damage themselves to do so.
The downside to this is that the damage may not be limited to just those bound and determined to damage themselves, i.e. collateral damage.

Democrats aren't very bright, if they can't think far enough ahead to understand how Republicans can use their own plot against them when the GOP gain control.

"Democrats aren't very bright" Full stop. Agreed. Seems the left is incapable to thinking even a single step beyond the first.
Is it any wonder that their public policy prescriptions fail so miserably when implemented?
This of the result of their 'No Cash Bail' and progressive prosecution public policy prescriptions and the easily predictable results they seemed to have completely missed in their thinking and analysis (or completely lack there of).

 

[Rich2018]

Sounds like authoritarian single-party state power grabbing and an end to democracy...

Maybe the people who support this should just move to other single-party states like China, Vietnam, Russia, etc?

No, it sounds like democracy.

 

[Individual]

According to many conservatives, that wouldn't matter because they claim we live in a republic, not a democracy.

Perhaps you should read our Constitution to see what it says about that.

 

[Peter]

No, it's how most Representative Democracies work

Though perhaps, the USA is not mature enough politically for it yet

The USA also needs madatory voting as practiced in countries like Australia.

I'm all for everyone voting but making it mandatory with some sort of fine for not doing so is not the way to go.
Being free to not vote is as valid an option as voting.
Low voter turnout can send a powerful message as to the ability of the candidates to claim a mandate.

 

[Rich2018]

Yup, nothing like authoritarianism.

How is mandatory voting, authoritarianism ?

Australians don't think it is.

NB: In a democracy, you can't ensure a person actually votes in a secret ballot, so "mandatory voting" really just means mandatory participation in the electoral system.
There's nothing to stop you walking into a voting center, collecting your ballot paper or whatever, and walking straight out.

 

[Individual]

Better yet, Federal laws should require passage by 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the Senate before being sent to the President, more like the amendment process.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm all for everyone voting but making it mandatory with some sort of fine for not doing so is not the way to go.
Being free to not vote is as valid an option as voting.
Low voter turnout can send a powerful message as to the ability of the candidates to claim a mandate.

I used to think that way, that if exercising suffrage was such a good thing, why on Earth do you need to make it mandatory? And the answer is two-fold:

Firstly it dramatically increases turnout, which in turn massively increases the legitimacy of the government

Secondly, it forces the political parties to appeal to all voting demographics.
And since staying at home is not an option, the use of negative advertising by political parties, will decrease - as persuading people that their vote/preferred party or candidate is worthless.

 

[Rich2018]

Better yet, Federal laws should require passage by 2/3 of the House and 3/4 of the Senate before being sent to the President, more like the amendment process.

Or even better by 50% +1 of the house and senate.