The Motion to Dismiss

[Lafayette]

Excellent article from The Economist: Motion to dimiss

Excerpt:

The filibuster is an oddity that harms American democracy

The men who framed America’s constitution intended the Senate as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. Its present-day failure to pass bills supported by a majority of its members, though, was never any part of that original design. It is the result of what seems to have been a genuine error: a lack of fixed procedures for shutting down debate.

That absence allowed minorities in the chamber to use various manoeuvres, most famously the filibuster, to block legislation a majority wishes to pass. Once onerous and used sparingly, subsequent changes to the rules have allowed these ruses to become routine, cost-free and all but ubiquitous. This has turned the Senate into the only legislative body in the world which requires a super-majority for ordinary business.

It is dead-easy for an American nowadays to get disgusted with the way our "government" works in LaLaLand on the Potomac. Though the House shows new leadership, the Senate is still stymied by the 50/50 partisanship.

We wanted a simple-duality version of a democracy in the Senate? Well got one. In spades. (Most other countries have learned from a lesson from the US. Those that have Senates do not allow them to interrupt lawmaking by the parliament (HofR) in their countries. And, "Thank you, Uncle Sam for the lesson!"

The article linked above is a detailed review of "America's tepid democratic representation" in DC. Having 51% is just-not-enough. And why. Because of party-trickery that goes back to the foundation of the nation.

It's called The Senate's "motion to dismiss". Meaning quite simply that either Congressional-party can sink the vote for a law by "talking it to death". Quite succinctly, the procedure defies the credibility of any party that employs it - and in the Senate its usage ihas become rampant:

The above demonstrates how your vote for the party-of-choice can become useless because any law proposed can be simply "dumped".

And, for once, I cannot complain it's all the Replicant Party's fault ...

 

[bongsaway]

Only in america can a vote go 59-41 and the forty one wins. It's crazy.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Only in america can a vote go 59-41 and the forty one wins. It's crazy.

It's surely is mind boggling. This shit needs to be changed.

 

[Lafayette]

It's surely is mind boggling. This shit needs to be changed.

Yeah, so we should have voted Trump in again?

The problem is with the voting population. We voted for these nerds (particularly the Replicants) and what we got is Big Problems after four years of a Do Nothing PotUS. And he almost had won reelection? Unbelievable!

Meaning what? That Donald-Dork will be back in four years for another try. Because he has nothing better to do in his sumptuous Mar-a-lago mansion. (By the way that means "Sea with a lake", which makes about as much sense as its owner has ever done!)

Well, yes, he did do something. He dropped upper income taxation order to obtain funds for his reelection.

Almost worked? Imagine - four more years of the worst PotUS in recent history ... !

 

[Cordelier]

Excellent article from The Economist: Motion to dimiss

Excerpt:


It is dead-easy for an American nowadays to get disgusted with the way our "government" works in LaLaLand on the Potomac. Though the House shows new leadership, the Senate is still stymied by the 50/50 partisanship.

We wanted a simple-duality version of a democracy in the Senate? Well got one. In spades. (Most other countries have learned from a lesson from the US. Those that have Senates do not allow them to interrupt lawmaking by the parliament (HofR) in their countries. And, "Thank you, Uncle Sam for the lesson!"

The article linked above is a detailed review of "America's tepid democratic representation" in DC. Having 51% is just-not-enough. And why. Because of party-trickery that goes back to the foundation of the nation.

It's called The Senate's "motion to dismiss". Meaning quite simply that either Congressional-party can sink the vote for a law by "talking it to death". Quite succinctly, the procedure defies the credibility of any party that employs it - and in the Senate its usage ihas become rampant:


The above demonstrates how your vote for the party-of-choice can become useless because any law proposed can be simply "dumped".

And, for once, I cannot complain it's all the Replicant Party's fault ...

We've pretty much had the same cloture rule since 1917 and guess what? The Senate still worked! In fact, it might be argued that it even worked better when cloture took a more restrictive 2/3 vote (prior to 1975) than it does a 3/5 vote.

I don't think the filibuster is all that great an obstacle to getting things done. According to the Senate's own statistics, we've had 1,814 cloture votes since 1917, and out of those, 1,130 were successful. That's a 62% success rate. And the more the filibuster is used, the greater that success rate seems to get. In the last Administration's 2 Congresses (115th and 116th), cloture succeeded 93% and 90% of the time, respectively.

I think the real problem a lot of people have with the filibuster is that they don't feel they have the skill it takes to deal with them. Like the late, great Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, used to say, "Any old jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a skilled craftsman to build one." Well, it doesn't take a whole lot of skill to start a filibuster... but if you want to get enough votes for cloture, that takes a little give and take.

Personally, I think it's a great and good thing for Senators to have to work together across the aisle to get things done. The filibuster encourages that to happen.... just like it has repeatedly over the last 100+ years.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's surely is mind boggling. This shit needs to be changed.

Or you all can move to those euro socialist countries that you want to change the US into

 

[Lafayette]

UNCLE SAM'S PRESIDENTIAL VOTING SHAM

Personally, I think it's a great and good thing for Senators to have to work together across the aisle to get things done. The filibuster encourages that to happen.... just like it has repeatedly over the last 100+ years.

In more than just a two-party political system I could agree with the above. But not in the shambles that exists in the Senate today.

In fact, the two-party system is in question. What good does it do to have ONLY two parties at one another's throats? When a "two major-party and two minor-party" system could perhaps work better at expressing the desires of the voting-public.

Besides, the way a Representative Government functions is key to any democracy. This recent-past has shown in the Senate that our "democracy" was a non-democracy shambles. Nothing gets done because in the recent past the Replicant-majority blocked all voting-initiatives that did not suit it! (The present system is a 50/50 sharing of the two major parties.)

And Americans should understand that factor when they vote for Senate candidates-for-office. Which is damn good reason to have a "two-major parties and two minor parties" system, one on the Right and the other on the Left. The two minor-parties could be hard-Left and hard-Right. Because those are nuances of political sentiment anyway in the country. In any real-democracy there is a breadth of four-colours of political-thinking and not just two! Both moderate and hard versions of Left and Right Political Sentiment!

But, no! We sit back and look at this mess in LaLaLand-on-the-Potomac and think "they'll work it all out". But they don't! Nothing changes except the public-barking from either side from time-to-time. That is not acceptable political-governance!

And some idiots, prompted by a sitting PotUS "sick in the head", think they can enter Congress and make of it a shambles because "Their PotUS" asked them to do so. Thus making a NATIONAL JOKE of our system of governance!

MY POINT?

Let's seriously consider the voting-shambles created by an Electoral College when the popular-vote is reduced to insignificance because of the Electoral College idiocy of "majority-vote rules" that allows a state to accord ALL EC-VOTES to the winner in that state! What-in-hell kind of democracy is THAT ... ?

The result being that the winner of the Popular-vote of the American public is totally disregarded by this manipulation of the Electoral College! Boyz-'n-girlz, that is not how a Really Fair Voting System works in any "other evolved" real-democracy on earth!

ADDITIONAL READS ON VOTING-SYSTEMS IN USE TODAY
*The list of countries that today employ an Electoral College here.
**The Pew Research Center - Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state

 

[Lafayette]

UNCLE SAM'S PRESIDENTIAL VOTING SHAM

In fact, the two-party system is in question. What good does it do to have ONLY two parties perpetually at one another's throats? When a "two major-party and two minor-party" system could perhaps work better at expressing the desires of the voting-public.

Besides, the way a Representative Government functions is key to any democracy. This recent-past has shown in the Senate that our "democracy" was a non-democracy shambles. Nothing gets done because in the recent past the Replicant-majority blocked all voting-initiatives that did not suit it! (The present system is a 50/50 sharing of the two major parties.)

And Americans should understand that factor when they vote for Senate candidates-for-office. Which is damn good reason to have a "two-major parties and two minor parties" system, one on the Right and the other on the Left. The two minor-parties could be hard-Left and hard-Right. Because those are nuances of political sentiment anyway in the country. In any real-democracy there is a breadth of four-colours of political-thinking and not just two! Both moderate and hard versions of Left and Right Political Sentiment!

But, no! We sit back and look at this mess in LaLaLand-on-the-Potomac and think "they'll work it all out". But they don't! Nothing changes except the public-barking from either side from time-to-time. That is not acceptable political-governance!

And some idiots, prompted by a sitting PotUS "sick in the head", think they can enter Congress and make of it a shambles because "Their PotUS" asked them to do so. Thus making a NATIONAL JOKE of our system of governance!

MY POINT?

Let's seriously consider the voting-shambles created by an Electoral College when the popular-vote is reduced to insignificance because of the Electoral College idiocy of "majority-vote rules" that allows a state to accord ALL EC-VOTES to the winner in that state! What-in-hell kind of democracy is THAT ... ?

The result being that the winner of the Popular-vote of the American public is totally disregarded by this manipulation of the Electoral College! Boyz-'n-girlz, that is not how a Really Fair Voting System works in any "other evolved" real-democracy on earth!

ADDITIONAL READS ON VOTING-SYSTEMS IN USE TODAY
*The list of countries that today employ an Electoral College here.
**The Pew Research Center - Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state

 

[Lafayette]

Excellent article from The Economist: Motion to dimiss

That second chart above should actually look like this:

It is apparent that the Center in the Senate no longer exists.

What does that mean? Quite simply that it becomes very difficult to come to a "common agreement" with which to pass laws. The Senate thus, in this regard, becomes "dysfunctional".

And that is No Way to run a true-democracy ...

 

[Cordelier]

That second chart above should actually look like this:

It is apparent that the Center in the Senate no longer exists.

What does that mean? Quite simply that it becomes very difficult to come to a "common agreement" with which to pass laws. The Senate thus, in this regard, becomes "dysfunctional".

And that is No Way to run a true-democracy ...

Lafayette... if there was any grand desire to form new political parties within the country, are there any effective barriers to anyone doing so? We've got any number of fringe "boutique" parties out there... Libertarian, Green, you name it. The reason they don't win legislative seats is precisely because there is no political support amongst the public for their limited messaging. To succeed in electoral politics, you need a broad message... you need effective policies across the board, and only the Democratic and Republican parties are presently capable of that kind of messaging.

As for the disintegrating center and your 1965 vs. 2021 chart... it doesn't really ring all that true for me. For instance, where are all the Southern Democrats in the 1965 chart? in 1965, Medicare passed the Senate 70-24... with 7 Southern Democrats voting "nay". So are 3 of them on the "More liberal" side. How about Voting Rights? That passed 79-18, and 17 of the "nays" were Southern Democrats. So where are they reflected in the '65 chart?

I think the main reason things "got done" in 1965 as opposed to recent years isn't that the political battles were somehow less intense or less partisan - it's because President Johnson was able to draft legislation and craft coalitions across party lines to make it happen. Just because he made it look easy doesn't mean it was - hell, if we're talking filibusters here, the cloture threshold back then was 67 votes - not 60 like it is today... and almost half his party was bitterly opposed to what he was trying to accomplish in Civil Rights and a lot of the other programs he was trying to get passed. He HAD to reach out and get Republican votes... he had no other option. He didn't have the luxury of just sitting back and relying on a base of support and making high-sounding speeches about legislation that was doomed to fail. And you know what? It didn't have to turn out the way it did, either.... the Republicans could have just as easily sided with the Southern Democrats and shut him down the same way they shut down President Truman's efforts.

You want to get things done? You don't have to do away with the filibuster to make that happen. You need to wheel and deal with Congress and make it happen. Day-in and day-out. I don't think we've had a President who has truly realized that since Clinton. It's still early days for Biden...so it's too early to tell if he gets it or not - but he was in the Senate for 6 terms - more than any other President we've ever had in history... so I've got to say if he didn't get it in all of that time, then he sure as hell was wasting a lot of time.

 

[Lafayette]

PEDDLING POLITICIANS!

Lafayette... if there was any grand desire to form new political parties within the country, are there any effective barriers to anyone doing so? We've got any number of fringe "boutique" parties out there... Libertarian, Green, you name it. The reason they don't win legislative seats is precisely because there is no political support amongst the public for their limited messaging. To succeed in electoral politics, you need a broad message... you need effective policies across the board, and only the Democratic and Republican parties are presently capable of that kind of messaging.

I've never suggested the "technique" for doing so.

Americans have to open-up their eyes to see how BigMoney is infiltrating and affecting governance not only of the city and state but the nation.

I have outlined in red the comment above because - for some of us and particularly those who have witnessed political-systems elsewhere - we see how it can be done differently. In France, for instance, a party cannot buy mountains of political messaging and flood the TV with it. But, yes, I know, America is a "Free Country". Nonetheless, it is also being manipulated by sop-advertising on TV!

No politcal-party should be able to "manipulate" the population by means of aggressive advertising (particularly on TV). Maybe such a strategy helps Detroit to sell cars. But, that does not mean it should be employed to elect anyone to political-office! Because what we are doing is Peddling-Politicians just like we Peddle-Cars!

Better yet would be not just to teach in schools "What the Constitution says", but HOW politics work - which, of course, is a Very Touchy Subject. Still, it is ONE HELLUVA DAMN SHAME that we should have to discuss the foundational-matter on a Website! This should be a political-discussion on-TV prior to any election to political-office. Otherwise, the adverts are just peddling politicians like companies sell candy-bars!

So, let's be grateful that, at least, there IS a way to debate politics on a personal level here in this forum! It is crucial to finding our way through the maze of political-thinking in the birth-land of true-democracy. But, ! say, albeit necessary it aint enough!

Politicians and political-parties in America are being peddled/sold just like candy-bars ... !

 

[Peter]

Or you all can move to those euro socialist countries that you want to change the US into

Getting stuff done is socialism now is it?

 

[Lafayette]

GORBACHEV KILLED SOCIALISM IN RUSSIA & EASTERN EUROPE

Getting stuff done is socialism now is it?

Like most in the West, you would not know Socialism if it bit you on the backside. Socialism no longer exists ANYWHERE in the world (except a similitude in China & North Korea). Whyzzat?

Because socialism is an economic-theory by which the state owns all the means of production*. That once existed in Eastern Europe and Russia. Both of which have adopted capitalism in that people and companies now obtain ownership of the means of production and/or buy land (from the state) and both build and resell or rent the property.

Getting stuff built or done is a simplicity for what economists call GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Which was, historically, a reaction at the onset of the 20th century to the main criticism of countries in which the means-of-production were possessed by the ultra-rich land-owners. Who converted their land-holdings that funded the creation of manufacturing businesses at the end of the 19th century. (1917 in Russia to be exact historically.)

Socialism failed because the politicians who adopted it in a country could not make it work. Whyzzat? Because it did not suit the simple definition of a "free market". That is, companies propose goods/services to markets where they stimulate Demand and get sold. Or not - it all depends upon customer-Demand.

It took a good number of decades but all came apart by 1991 starting with Gorbachev in Russia and the eastern-European countries quickly followed suit (by asking to join the EU) ...

 

[Glitch]

Lafayette... if there was any grand desire to form new political parties within the country, are there any effective barriers to anyone doing so? We've got any number of fringe "boutique" parties out there... Libertarian, Green, you name it. The reason they don't win legislative seats is precisely because there is no political support amongst the public for their limited messaging. To succeed in electoral politics, you need a broad message... you need effective policies across the board, and only the Democratic and Republican parties are presently capable of that kind of messaging.

As for the disintegrating center and your 1965 vs. 2021 chart... it doesn't really ring all that true for me. For instance, where are all the Southern Democrats in the 1965 chart? in 1965, Medicare passed the Senate 70-24... with 7 Southern Democrats voting "nay". So are 3 of them on the "More liberal" side. How about Voting Rights? That passed 79-18, and 17 of the "nays" were Southern Democrats. So where are they reflected in the '65 chart?

I think the main reason things "got done" in 1965 as opposed to recent years isn't that the political battles were somehow less intense or less partisan - it's because President Johnson was able to draft legislation and craft coalitions across party lines to make it happen. Just because he made it look easy doesn't mean it was - hell, if we're talking filibusters here, the cloture threshold back then was 67 votes - not 60 like it is today... and almost half his party was bitterly opposed to what he was trying to accomplish in Civil Rights and a lot of the other programs he was trying to get passed. He HAD to reach out and get Republican votes... he had no other option. He didn't have the luxury of just sitting back and relying on a base of support and making high-sounding speeches about legislation that was doomed to fail. And you know what? It didn't have to turn out the way it did, either.... the Republicans could have just as easily sided with the Southern Democrats and shut him down the same way they shut down President Truman's efforts.

You want to get things done? You don't have to do away with the filibuster to make that happen. You need to wheel and deal with Congress and make it happen. Day-in and day-out. I don't think we've had a President who has truly realized that since Clinton. It's still early days for Biden...so it's too early to tell if he gets it or not - but he was in the Senate for 6 terms - more than any other President we've ever had in history... so I've got to say if he didn't get it in all of that time, then he sure as hell was wasting a lot of time.

I have tried to explain this before, but I suppose it is too complex to be grasped by those living outside the US.

The third parties, or as you put it, the "fringe 'boutique' parties", pop into existence whenever there is an issue that neither of the two major parties are addressing. When one, or both, of the two major parties pick up on the issue that is gaining the third party support, then that third party becomes irrelevant and disappears.

The latest example of this occurring was the Reform Party started by Ross Perot in 1992. It gained popularity quickly because of the federal fiscal concerns being raised. When the Republican Party adopted many of those fiscal reforms, including Welfare reform, the Reform Party began to fade into obscurity. By 2000 the Reform Party still had a candidate for President, but they were no longer relevant politically.

Only those third parties that are based on more than a single issue manage to last. Like the Communist Party USA founded in 1919, or the Libertarian Party founded in 1972, or the Green Party founded in 1991, etc.

One could say that third parties succeed when they cease to exist. If they are no longer deemed necessary, then it must mean that one or both of the major political parties have adopted their issue as their own.

 

[mrjurrs]

We've pretty much had the same cloture rule since 1917 and guess what? The Senate still worked! In fact, it might be argued that it even worked better when cloture took a more restrictive 2/3 vote (prior to 1975) than it does a 3/5 vote.

I don't think the filibuster is all that great an obstacle to getting things done. According to the Senate's own statistics, we've had 1,814 cloture votes since 1917, and out of those, 1,130 were successful. That's a 62% success rate. And the more the filibuster is used, the greater that success rate seems to get. In the last Administration's 2 Congresses (115th and 116th), cloture succeeded 93% and 90% of the time, respectively.

I think the real problem a lot of people have with the filibuster is that they don't feel they have the skill it takes to deal with them. Like the late, great Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, used to say, "Any old jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a skilled craftsman to build one." Well, it doesn't take a whole lot of skill to start a filibuster... but if you want to get enough votes for cloture, that takes a little give and take.

Personally, I think it's a great and good thing for Senators to have to work together across the aisle to get things done. The filibuster encourages that to happen.... just like it has repeatedly over the last 100+ years.

Over the last 100 years, the Senate has become more partisan. The filibuster no longer works.

 

[Lafayette]

A SENATE THAT HAS GONE WACKO

Over the last 100 years, the Senate has become more partisan. The filibuster no longer works.

From here:
A 'talking filibuster' isn't going to solve the Senate's problems

Excerpt:

President Joe Biden threw his significant political weight this week behind an effort to reform the Senate's filibuster process, telling ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days. You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking."
Biden's endorsement of the so-called "talking filibuster" -- in which senators would be forced to actually hold the floor and speak while they sought to delay a vote to end debate -- will provide further momentum to the proposal, which has been previously backed by the likes of Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (Illinois) and Joe Manchin (West Virginia).

The goal is simple: To find a middle ground between the liberal left, which wants to get rid of the legislative filibuster entirely and moderate Democrats like Manchin and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, who are adamantly opposed to doing just that.

The filibuster no longer works because the Replicants refuse to acknowledge its "so-called rules". And, more importantly, there is NO law that posits rules regarding filibustering in the Senate. (Or Congress in general.) It's just the majority head of the Senate who decides whether to employ the mechanism or not.

For the moment, with the 50/50 split in the Senate, it may appear that the VP actually runs things.

Either element of Congress (Senate or HofR) that refuses to meet and pass law? I don't know what one might call that.

Stop their paychecks and see if that works ... !?!

PS: And just in case you were wondering, from here: Vice President of the United States - Wikipedia

Excerpt:

• Salary: $235,100 annually
  [*]First holder: John Adams
  [*]Term length: Four years, no term limit
  [*]Residence: Number One Observatory Circle