It's important to understand that the suggestions I made were just discussion points, not something I've thought through in detail. You asked for what we'd do to change the US political system and Ricky suggested a fundamental overhaul. I don't see the point in proposing something like that because it's something that can never happen, so instead I came up with a couple of proposals for how I think the current system can be slightly tweaked to encourage more effective governance without significantly changing the way things work already.

I don't think it's appropriate to start talking about concepts like tyranny by majority here. Winning an election gives you a mandate to govern for a fixed period, beyond which you then have to seek a renewal of your mandate at another election. This is the essence of representative democracy. It's already possible for one party to control all three branches of the Federal government, we only need to go back 4 years to see it, so I hardly think it's a step on the road to serfdom if the system is tweaked to make that marginally more probable. Ultimately that party would still need to defend control of the Senate every 2 years and both the House and Presidency every 4, and since the districts would be more competitive this would be a legitimate challenge.

You haven't really advanced any serious drawbacks as yet. I can see that you're instinctively opposed to the idea, but it's not immediately obvious why. My suspicion is that if you give it some more thought you may come round to my point of view.

I thought of one more little change btw. I can't remember the proper wording but there was a clause in the old constitution of the Confederacy that said something like any bill before Congress shall deal with only one subject, and this shall be included in its title. Such a simple thing, but think of all the bullshit and all the earmarks that it could eliminate...

You're exactly right it did say that.

And guess who else's constitution includes it...

Still can't finish yet, time for a nap and stuff. Then i have a star party to go to...but I might get my next post in before then. I feel you do deserve a more articulate argument that sort of thing.

Screw corporate interference, I wonder how much of the federal deficit could be slimmed down if the U.S. Constitution (or at least the manuals of parliamentary procedure) were amended to include such a provision...

To hell with "slimmed down" in fact: we could probably pay the whole damn thing off, all $14,000,000,000,000 of it just by cutting out the occasional barrel of pork. (Or in the very least keep it from getting any larger. The President could reinstate the Constellation Mission, in fact, that would be neat....all we'd need to do is cut out the superfluity of pork barrel politics.)

You haven't really advanced any serious drawbacks as yet. I can see that you're instinctively opposed to the idea, but it's not immediately obvious why. My suspicion is that if you give it some more thought you may come round to my point of view.

Which idea am I opposed to? Total power of the Majority to rule via their Democratic Mandate? [it is one of the arguments I've been trying to advance the better part of this thread!]

Would you like me to articulate my reasons in one, cogent and itemized explanation? First give me a very specific statement or statements, of what you have been trying (and obviously failing) to convince me of this whole time. I'll respond very thoughtfully and....I thinnk cogently is the word, no?)

Just don't say I didn't warn you.

Hacker

Total power of the Majority to rule via their Democratic Mandate?

Are you saying that a democratically elected majority should not be able to pass constitutionally valid laws with a majority of the representatives voting in favour?

Well I'm not sure yet. I was waiting for you and Sass. to tell me what exactly---specifically---is/are the core idea or ideas you are trying to convince me of that I'm not getting? Sass. said that, as you read above, I am opposed to something that I haven't advanced the actual drawbacks to yet. In other words, I'm asking, if you want me to explain myself I will do so. I certainly have read all that you both (and others) have posted, but I need to know specifically what you are asking and how you're asking it? (I ask this because I have been opposed to plenty of your [rickyp and Sassesnach both] arguments thus far )

So can the two of you articulate one or more points on which you want me to explain myself more clearly?

Oh, wait, was that the question Ricky? If it is, I can get right on it. Nothing on the agenda today...lazy Sunday afternoon (still 12:52 pm here and I've got no shortage of time, so there's no excuse for a shoddy argument from my quarter.)

I suggested a few small amendments to your constitutional arrangements that I feel might go some way to improving the likelihood of a government forming which would have the power to work effectively in the legislature while not fundamentally altering the status quo too much. These include, but are not limited to, an independent body for drawing up the boundaries of Congressional diustricts with a mandate to make them firstly geographically coherent and secondly try to make them more competitive; changes to the way the House is elected so that all Congressmen are selected at the same time as the President and serve for a 4 year term, hopefully leading to a greater likelihood of the same party winning both branches; abolition of Citizens United and stricter caps on political donations; adoption of the old CSA clause on Congressional bills. None of these things would represent a huge shift in the way things are done but cumulatively I think they could be beneficial.

Well after giving it some careful thought, I have already agreed on the gerrymandering. About the political donations I am not sure what can actually be done. Doing what worked in Canada won't make it work automatically in the United States. But I at least in principle agree, and have done so already, that corporations do have an undue influence over the political process especially at the federal level. I do not think, however, that the boundary commission you advocate would best be served by the federal government (someone would try to challenge such a measure as unconstitutional, and it probably would be, so it would be shot down if someone tried to make it a federal commission reporting directly to Congress). As painstaking as it sounds it would have to be achieved be each state, one at a time. Which sux but that it what would have to happen since the states are empowered currently to redraw the districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. But it isn't impossible, one of you brought up that five states have already done so.

Yes, independent redistricting would solve a lot of problems. It might even make congressmen more accountable to their constituents, not to the party mapmakers or corporate donors, hopefully.

I disagree that synchronising the terms/elections of members of the House with that of the President would do anything positive. One of you, over my objections that changing the 2-year cycle for the House would not do very much positive, said the country has been "in gridlock for 3.5 years" meaning that the 2-year cycle automatically doesn't work so let's go to a 4 year one...unless I have carelessly misunderstood you again. I'm sorry, but your argument has yet to sway me.

But have you considered that there was at least the POSSIBILITY that the 2012 elections for president & congress might have produced a different result? They produced a strongly Republican house and whittled away at the Democratic majority in the Senate. But did they have to, necessarily? They might have ended up doing the opposite...they may very well have produced two Democratic chambers, and still re-elected the Democratic President. I'm sure you have an explanation as to why I'm wrong about that, too, and it never could have happened. The GOP takeover in the House was likely, but forgive me, I thought you were speaking "historically". Like with actual data of historical patterns. The media can take polls all the time, but until the votes are counted, we've been known to change our minds on election day. The two year cycle did not benefit THIS time, but mathematically, it could have. And how can you be sure that the 2014 miderms willl produce gridlock again? Again, the election isn't over until the fat lady sings and the last vote has been counted. It could produce (and I predict it will but I am no more a prophet than you are) both houses in GOP hands. Not only that, you said you would not propose changing the Senate. Meaning: every two years, 1/3 of them are up for grabs. Still ample opportunity for gridlock. Only this time, you'd have to wait longer for any possible swings in the House of Representatives. Wait longer for the gridlock to resolve itself.

Now as far as filibusters and supermajorities, as Ricky mentioned, that is PROCEDURAL stuff, not CONSTITUTIONAL. The biggest "gridlocked" issue was the Budget for the last couple of years. Now in THIS case I will agree the flaw is constitutional: the authors of the Constitution kind of assumed that Congress would be the "purse" of the community and left it at "all bills for raising revenue shall begin in the House of Representatives." [not an exact quote] and left it at that. They produced what I consider to be a profoundly practical document...with a few holes in it because they were not prophets who could look 225 years into the future.

BTW, you do remember the "nuclear option" right? as far as filibustering and obstructionism?

CSA clause, all bills must relate to but one subject, expressed in the title, and all amendments to it must be germane; great idea. I dont know how we are going to convince Congress of it but it's possible that some of them are as sick of pork barreling as their constituents are.

Did that cover everything?

BTW how many bills favored by a majority does the minority have to obstruct to make a legislature, like Congress, truly "dysfunctional"? I am curious. Do you know how many bills they pass in a year, that the president signs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... ress-ever/

BTW how many bills favored by a majority does the minority have to obstruct to make a legislature, like Congress, truly "dysfunctional"? I am curious

theres a clue in the second graph....
and more about dysfuntion in the article as a whole.
(its a little dated.)

Ricky, you are aware of the difference between a BILL and a LAW, no? The Washington Post seems to be playing its usual game of smear the opposition by bending facts and presenting half-truths. I do not doubt its assertion that Congress passed far less LAWS during the 112th Congress, versus the 111th and previous Congresses. But I strongly suspect that the Post is playing on the fact that most people will assume [just as you have] that they mean the same thing when they fail to differentiate in this article between a bill and a law.

OK, now please forgive me if I sound a little tart, here, but I know you are smart enough to make a better argument than this. Just as a suggestion, don't use the Washington Post to prove a point in the future; normally one will find that one has done worse. My advice would be to check the House and Senate websites to find out, rather than use---if you'll forgive me for making an ad hominem argument, even if I am right to do so---the squalid little rag that passes for a newspaper in our nation's capital. They're like Fox News for the pro-Obama crowd.

The thing that they are passing off as a bar chart in this article, seems to demonstrate [well, allege] the 112th Congress passed about 100 laws. I could be totally wrong about this, maybe it really was 100 BILLS as well, and maybe [for once] the Post actually is not misleading its readers which means you, too, are nearer the mark than I on the dysfunctional argument, and I'd owe you a beer [if we were both in person]. But I strongly suspect Congress passed a lot more BILLS than 100 between January 3, 2011 and January 3, 2013. Let's check it out.

JimHackerMP wrote:But I strongly suspect Congress passed a lot more BILLS than 100 between January 3, 2011 and January 3, 2013. Let's check it out.

Depends what you see as a "law", a "bill" and an "Act". And whether we really should get into semantics over an article written part-way through the 112th Congress.

Wikipedia lists all of the Acts passed by the 112th Congress during - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_th ... s_Congress. I see 284, including one "private law". But this includes such things as...

112-2: Named a courthouse in Yuma, Arizona after John M. Roll.
112-11: Named a federal building and courthouse in Martinsburg, West Virginia afterW. Craig Broadwater.
112-15: Named a Postal Service facility in Inverness, California after Jake Robert Velloza.
112-22: Named a Postal Service facility in Rootstown, Ohio after Marine Sgt. Jeremy E. Murray.
112-23: Named a Postal Service facility in Cary, Mississippi after Spencer Byrd Powers, Jr..
112-31: Named a federal courthouse in Jefferson City, Missouri after Christopher S. Bond.
112-38: Named a Postal Service facility in Schertz, Texas after the local veterans.
112-39: Named a Postal Service facility in Lubbock, Texas after Chris Davis.
112-47: Named a Postal Service facility in Barrigada, Guam after John Pangelinan Gerber.
112-48: Named a Postal Service facility in Pasadena, California after Oliver Goodall.
112-49: Named a Postal Service facility in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts after Matthew A. Pucino.
112-50: Named a Postal Service facility in Honolulu, Hawaii after Cecil Heftel.

That's just out of the first 50. Several others I see are simply extending existing laws in time, or re-authorising them. Others are ratifying appointments to federal positions, such as members of the Board of Regents to the Smithsonian. Some are shown as being technical corrections to existing laws. Do you consider those to be real 'Bills'?

But from after the end of the 112th Session, we can find another WaPo article which also does cite a source as well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ress-ever/

The data comes from this report - http://www.brookings.edu/research/repor ... n-ornstein (chapter 6)

Here is my point:

Firstly I was aware that bills from the UK Parliament and those of Commonwealth Realms must receive Royal Assent in order to make them LAWS or ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. But in the UK and elsewhere this is a formality, I was told, because the last time the King of England (it was Queen Anne) vetoed a bill was in 1708 (Scottish Militia Bill).

Unlike the Queen, or her Governors-General, the President of the United States has a real choice to approve it or not---it is not in any way a mere formality. (Though he is constitutionally-required to attach a letter to Congress detailing his objections to the Bill, and it must be longer than "suck it.")

The distinction is that a BILL has not had presidential approval yet, or has been vetoed by the President (in which case it is a fancy-looking paperweight with no force of law). A LAW has been signed by the president, in approval of it. There is even the possibility of the Congressional "override" being used to make a bill a law [veto the veto]...however, that does not happen very often (it requires a bill to be passed in both houses a second time after it is vetoed, but it requires a 2/3 supermajority in both houses).

The article in The Washington Post was at the very least possibly (if not actually "likely" because it is of course The Washington Post) telling us a half-truth by giving us quite literally the LAWS passed by Congress AND approved by the President...as opposed to giving us the TOTAL number of bills, vetoed AND approved, together, that were passed by those Congresses. I get the feeling that the Post did it to be able to show the 112th Congress as a "do-nothing Congress" due to its Republican-controlled lower house. By only showing true ACTS of Congress (approved laws) and discluding the number of bills vetoed by the President (fancy-looking paperweights) it did precisely that in a rather disingenuous manner typical of The Washington Post.

So Ricky: for your argument to be more convincing, I need evidence that comes from a reliable source, by that I mean a source which details how many BILLS were passed by CONGRESS during those years (not just the ones signed/approved by the PRESIDENT and therefore called actual LAWS). Because I strongly suspect that the disparity in the number of laws made by the 112th Congress, vis a vis those passed by the 111th and earlier congresses, is due to Barack Obama's rather uncompromising "veto" stamp. See how the number of laws passed becomes less and less numerous over time in that chart? It is not that Congresses have been doing less and less work, or squabbling too much due to congressional gridlock; it is likely because of the increased frequency of the use of the Presidential veto.

In the mean time, I myself will try to look up this stuff; maybe the house and senate websites have the total number of bills passed by both houses off congress in those years.

Danivon, just so I do not leave your question unanswered, yes I do. But did you actually read the report yourself? You seem to think the Washington Post reporter did...right?

As I understand it, Congress passed 561 bills in the 112th Congress. This was a record low.

Of these, 284 were promulgated (given Presidential assent and issued) as Acts - what you are calling 'laws'.

I find it hard to believe that Klein in July 2012 would have read a report only produced a year later. But seems to me that the reporter for the 2013 articla read the report fine.