I heard about his one man campaign to stop a new bill yesterday, and was fairly astonished that for the bill to pass it needed a 100% majority.
Is this normal in American Politics ? and how often are bills killed or held up by just 1 senator ?
Printable View
I heard about his one man campaign to stop a new bill yesterday, and was fairly astonished that for the bill to pass it needed a 100% majority.
Is this normal in American Politics ? and how often are bills killed or held up by just 1 senator ?
Depending on the bill... it can happen. One of the most common techniques is the fillibuster... where a senator gets the floor, and until he/she yields it, they can stop just about any thing. If you get the chance, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart has one of the best ones. As long as the senator can stand and continues to speak, nothing happens. And it doesn't matter what the subject is.... the Bible... their dog... their grandma's recipes.
-tg
Bunning's filibuster is over. The bill passed late last night 78-19.
Ok i will check it out.Quote:
If you get the chance, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart has one of the best ones.
Yeh i heard, but i wasn't really bothered about the specifics or the guy himself ( i had never even heard of Jim Bunning before about a couple of days ago) just the fact that it is possible for just 1 senator to block a bill from being passed.Quote:
Bunning's filibuster is over. The bill passed late last night 78-19.
It just seemed a little crazy to me that 1 guy, can basically hold up the entire political process.
Is this kind of power used a lot ? or is this the exception rather than the rule ?
First off this was not a filibuster. What is needed before a vote must be taken on a bill (before it can come to the floor) is called unanimous consent. If a senator objects to unanimous consent then the bill must still be debated. Objections can be overruled by a 60 vote cloture vote or they simply could have waited until Bunning wasn’t there to move the bill to the floor, if he wasn’t there to object the bill would then move to the floor.
At the heart of the matter was that democats recently passed a bill that was signed into law called Pay-Go. This means that if the Congress is going to pass a bill they have to find the money to pay for it. In typical politician behavior less than a week after Pay-Go was signed into law the democrats decided to “exempt” this particular bill from the new law. In other words they don’t have the money to pay for this bill and simply want to fire up the printing presses to pay for it. Bunning objected to this obvious hypocrisy and decided to take a stand, trying to point out the unsustainable nature of the current spending in Washington and this years projected 1.6 trillion dollar deficit.
Bunning supported extending unemployment benefits, as he has voted for all of them in the past, he just wanted to have it paid for and not simply printed from the government money presses. Democrats could have moved the bill along but instead took this as a political opportunity to criticize Bunning and the Republicans for wanting to take food out of the mouths of the unemployed (a standard Democrat poly to whip up the uninformed masses to vote Democrat come election day).
X
Personally, I'm disgusted with both parties... if I could, I'd change my registration to something else but the laws here make it difficult for new parties to be officially recognized... >:}
-tg
Your entitled to your opinion of course but i really was just asking about the method used to stop the bill not the politics involved.Quote:
First off this was not a filibuster. What is needed before a vote must be taken on a bill (before it can come to the floor) is called unanimous consent. If a senator objects to unanimous consent then the bill must still be debated. Objections can be overruled by a 60 vote cloture vote or they simply could have waited until Bunning wasn’t there to move the bill to the floor, if he wasn’t there to object the bill would then move to the floor.
At the heart of the matter was that democats recently passed a bill that was signed into law called Pay-Go. This means that if the Congress is going to pass a bill they have to find the money to pay for it. In typical politician behavior less than a week after Pay-Go was signed into law the democrats decided to “exempt” this particular bill from the new law. In other words they don’t have the money to pay for this bill and simply want to fire up the printing presses to pay for it. Bunning objected to this obvious hypocrisy and decided to take a stand, trying to point out the unsustainable nature of the current spending in Washington and this years projected 1.6 trillion dollar deficit.
Bunning supported extending unemployment benefits, as he has voted for all of them in the past, he just wanted to have it paid for and not simply printed from the government money presses. Democrats could have moved the bill along but instead took this as a political opportunity to criticize Bunning and the Republicans for wanting to take food out of the mouths of the unemployed (a standard Democrat poly to whip up the uninformed masses to vote Democrat come election day).
X
It just surprised me that 1 senator could have the power to delay or stop bills on his own even if the other 99% of senators supported the bill.
That doesn't sound very democratic to me, as it could allow undue influence to one individual against the many.
What do Americans think about it ? does it in practise rarely become a problem or do you think that it slows down the political process and can stop things getting done.
Did you even read my post or just quote it? If 60 Senators (that’s 60%) support a bill it doesn’t matter if 1 person denies unanimous consent to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, because all they have to do is have a cloture vote to override the objection. The bill will then go to the floor regardless of objection.
The other method would be to move the bill to the floor when Bunning was not present in the chamber thus bypassing his objection. So you see there was more than one method of moving the bill along without creating the spectacle the Democrats wanted to create.
This is nothing out of the ordinary in the Senate where it is routine that 60 Senators need too support anything to get it passed.
Not even Americans understand the rules of the Senate so it doesn’t surprise me many people would take press reports at face value and believe what is written. For me Bunning should be hailed as a hero for finally standing up and asking Congress to actually pay for their spending instead of just passing bill after bill without thinking of how to pay for them.
X
I guess it allows the politicians to arrive at some "mutually acceptable" compromises. I hear there's a word for such compromises too...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers
.
Me too!Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
My answer is not to vote for the incumbent. This year will be the second time I have done this. If enough of us do this the message will get through. Pass it on.
What I really wish for is a "None of the Above" option or a way send a "Vote of No Confidence"
I guess that's the same as simply not voting.... but I think that if "None" or "No Confidence" got the majority vote.... it might send a message much more louder.
-tg
So just don't vote for the incumbent. If everybody would do it, "they'd" get the message.
I'd like a government that isn't confused, or has to have a meeting, to decide that any interest rate above 10% should be illegal.
I don't think for a second they'd get the message with that - there are way to many other reasons that people could be voting that way.
A "none of the above" option is good, but I prefer the brilliant option over here... the Monster Raving Loony Party. Some of their clearly joking policies include:
It works so well that when the options in local elections were bad enough, the Loony won... and is often the case, their candidate was literally an animal (a cat to be precise).
- To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside.
- It is proposed that The European Union end its discrimination by creating a "Court of Human Lefts" because their present policy is one_sided.
- The problems of prison overcrowding and increased crime will be solved easily by issuing a compulsory contract on McDonalds to do all prison catering. Convervative estimates suggest a 50% reduction in crime rates within 2 years with 0% re-offender figures.
- Make it illegal for super heroes to use their powers for evil.
"They" never get the message, and some tactics can backfire.
Term limitation is one of these things. In many places there are now limits on elected offices, allowing only two or three terms of service by any individual. The idea was that when a seat gets comfy it is tough to oust an incumbent due to the settling in of influencing organizations and money they bring as well as name recognition among otherwise-uninformed voters.
The downside are things like a short term view, which has lead to many ills. A growing trend is "carpet bagger politicians" who roam among political jurisdictions in search of another round of serving their true lords and masters. Many of these people are just suits fronting for a coalition of special interests and the political corporation, er... party, they belong to.
State law here limits serving in the state senate to two terms. Period. Can't move around & change districts. It was enacted a few years ago and has had some unanticipated consequences. OK, sure, we got the "career" politicians out... but now who is going to replace him/her? Problem is that the voters keep turning down pay raises for the state senate (which is a paltry 12k/yr) so the only people that can truly afford to run are essentially the self-emplyeed business types.
"So just don't vote for the incumbent." - So who should I vote for? The next moron that's going to be the next incumbent? That's not what I want. I want a "I don't like either of the choices."
-tg
Since the US lacks a Monster Raving Looney Party (and you guys should get one, by the way - they're monstrously amusing) I'd ask whether spoiled ballots are counted over there. In the UK this is the unofficial but traditional way of voting 'None Of The Above'. It's not perfect because some ballots are, of course, accidentally spoiled, but when there's a huge spike in spoilt ballots politicians have to sit up and take notice because they can't blame it on 'voter apathy'.
Of course, a proper 'None Of The Above' option would be prefereable and I think it speaks volumes about the psychology of most politicians that such an option doesn't exist.
The problem with not voting or spoiled ballots is that it's a numbers game. Consider this:
1000 ballots. 750 are "spoiled" in protest... that means the remaining 250 decide the representational fate of the district. Let's say there were three candidates. The incumbent gets 90 of the votes. Candidate #2 gets 85, and the third gets 75. That means with less than 10% of the vote, the incumbent is re-elected.
I'd love to have a Monster Raving Loon Party here. State law makes it next to impossible though.
-tg
That just reminds me of the fantastic election campaign in Brewsters Millions !:D:D:DQuote:
What I really wish for is a "None of the Above"
I probably wasn't clear when I said "jurisdictions." In the U.S. they just move on to another State. When it's a national office they move to another country (I kid you not - look at how many Canadians come to the U.S. and become politicians here).Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
and that's what I'm trying to say... state law here requires minimum residency in the district/state/whatever before you can run. Cuts down on that. Besides, only people from Nebraska would want to claim Nebraska. However, what we do get are carpetbagger bills and protesters... mostly from Kansas. Apparently things are so perfect in KS that they feel the need to complain about things in other states.
-tg
That's just drift. If you get a strong south wind, the Kansans tend to pile up towards the north and spill over into neighboring states.
So, just out of curiosity, how many people vote FOR somebody because you support them, as opposed to casting a vote for somebody because you are against their opponent?
As I have stated many times, my new voting method is do not vote for the incumbent. If they run a pig against the incumbent there will be more pork in congress if I have my way. Voting for the "right" person doesn't seem to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
That's how I try to vote... which is why my votes never run party lines (that and the Libertarian party isn't recognized as a legitimate party here)
One thing that is nice, is that the district and circuit judges here are elected in. And it's not like Judge A vs Judge B in the voting.... its "Keep Judge A?" which means that if you don't like how a particular judge is working out, you can vote against retaining them. It's been done a couple times.
-tg
If everybody vote like I do we would see a radical change (for the good?) in our government.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
So you'd vote for a pig in a pinch, but would you vote for a pig in a poke?Quote:
Originally Posted by dbasnett
No... but pigs in a blanket would get mine.
-tg
As long as it wasn't the joke in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker