Point is, Hacker, that a Bill is just presented to a single chamber. Two Bills (one Senate and one House, in either order) are needed to produce one Act. I never said there were 561 completed Bills. What they were was 561 Bills passed in either housr of Congress, resulting in 284 that were presented to the President.

The record of Presidential vetoes is easy to find. If Obama had vetoed hundreds of Bills, it would be well known. As it is, he only vetoed 2 Bills, and they were drom the 111th Congress.

WaPo's figures were correct in that per session (each Congress is made up of 2 one year sessions), at the time of writing, fewer than 100 laws were being passed in the first session and a half of the 112th Congress. Most Laws get passed in the latter part of a second session, but even then Congress passed a low number of Bills and Laws in the 112th and is on course to repeat that in the 113th.

Seriously, Hacker, you should research this stuff more thoroughly before implying that someone is lying.

Seriously, Hacker, you should research this stuff more thoroughly before implying that someone is lying.

Sigh....all right, point taken. I guess you've told me. But I never said YOU were lying, or Rickyp or Sassenach, or anybody who has poked their head in. Just that the Post was exaggerating.

But at least as an aside, I still hold little trust in The Washington Post. I used to read them a lot more often, but they exaggerate quite a bit. And when I say quite a bit; I know that there is no such thing as a reporter without an opinion but they really push the envelope of reasonable journalism. I doubt I am the only one on Redscape with that opinion.

One thing, though: the president can involve himself in legislation in a really big way that the office was not intended to do. He can simply threaten to veto a bill. It is not something exclusive to President Obama either. There have been political science studies done about how the veto "shapes" legislation. Not saying that is the cause of Congress putting out less product these last few years you know; but it's true...you do not have to actually use the veto stamp to kill something when you are president.

BTW about "bills":

If I remember correctly: when a bill is introduced, which it can be to either chamber, it is given a number. If the bill was introduced by its sponsors into the House of Representatives by any of its members, it is HB1234 (for argument's sake) or SB1234. It is not actually a separate, discrete bill, once it gets to the chamber opposite. It will carry the same number, including the SB or HB prefix. There are however cases where a bill *can* be introduced to both chambers, but I am fairly sure that that is the case when it's a White House resolution (the constitution gives the President the power to recommend measures to the Congress for their consideration). There's the several readings, assignment of the bill to committee, etc, in each chamber. It probably works the same as in the UK, as far as the "readings" and committee reports, except that someone told me a while ago on this thread that your upper house cannot initiate legislation whereas the U.S. Senate can. The vast majority of bills begin in the House rather than the Senate. (Pretty obvious why: there are only 100 senators whereas there are 435 reps and 6 delegates in the House).

It is not true that a bill *must* necessarily be introduced as two separate bills....though sometimes similar legislation is introduced into one chamber and the other simultaneously, with an SB# and a HB#. But then it will have to get reconciled via a conference committee (even a bill originating in one chamber will often have to get reconciled via conference committee because after the entire process of committee and amendment in the opposite chamber there can be differences).

hacker

Just that the Post was exaggerating.

and yet, after careful examination of the evidence, they weren't. And if the evidence shows this to be the case, perhaps your genera attitude towards the Post is not generally supportable by evidence either.


hacker

When I read that I am merely "regurgitating Republican propaganda", OMG, I nearly shat myself I laughed so hard. You have my thanks.
Sorry, perhaps I didn't mention that I was gay, right?

I know this may seem obvious. But you can regurgitate republican propaganda on most issues,, as you were, on this issue - and yet actively disagree with their discriminatory policies aganst gays and lesbians .

Have you also considered that in the totals of bills passed that have been enumerated here, that it includes 52 House passages of a bill that would repeal the ACA? I don't think this is a "bipartisan problem. Its refusal to accept a reality by a minority.
You know the definition of insanity right?

You know the definition of insanity right?

Orwell said it's a minority of one. Not very nice, though, Ricky; not very nice...

OK, OK, I understand your views on the Post article. Do forgive me if I was a little...stubborn in that regard. However, you must understand, in my experience as someone who formerly read the thing, they are often prone to exaggeration and promoting only one side of the issue. And all right I'm wrong on this issue of the 113th congress (or 112th for that matter) being a "do nothing" congress. Show me the Post all you want in the future, but remember, there are a lot of other people (many of them here on Redscape I've read from) with whom it doesn't fly. I think the only paper the Post can really compare to in 18th century-style journalism is perhaps
The Baltimore Sun.

So, what do you want me to believe at this point? Fine! if the evidence points to this Congress has really got it wrong in every way well, all right! I agree that a shitload of their time could have been spent on more...productive pursuits.

As for the regurgitating of GOP propaganda; you see: it is when I start to hear certain words that make my ears perk up I start to believe that the other person is only looking at one side of the coin. Not saying you talk like that, or that your information is one-sided. But...hell...I cannot really describe it. I was really only able to scratch the surface of the Brookings Institute Report. So if it sounds like I'm doing that [regurgitating propaganda] you'll have to excuse me. Alexander Hamilton was right. I do believe, though, that there are two sides to the whole gridlock thing, and I STILL believe that the president is equally at fault. Whether anyone thinks congress is at fault, or the president is at fault, seems these days to be dependent on whether one is a Democrat or a Republican. And personally I cannot stand it when people---not saying any of you!---in our society will do that: ignore the information if only because it supports the other side. That probably didn't explain it too well, but as you can tell from this reply I've got a few things I'm trying to do simultaneously so concentration is a bit of a scarce commodity at this point.

By the way, remember (let's not get into a debate on THIS now shall we? or at least limit it to the number of attempts to repeal it!) that the "Affordable" Care Act was passed by 535 people who each make $174,000 per year; they may have a different idea of "affordable" than, say, I would. But that's just a thought.

That said, however, I would agree endless attempts to repeal it will do more harm than good (a lot more). And the thing about suing the President? It will do to the GOP now what the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton did to them back in 1998: backfire massively. They might lose this opportunity to recapture the White House.

And also: I just said in a previous post on this thread that I was going to change my party affiliation to unaffiliated, right? (or did I edit something out that I was writing?) In fact, once I've taken care of a few things, I'll fill out the paperwork because I have to hit the post office anyway. Once that is done, I will have divested myself of the right to vote in Republican primaries, anymore. And frankly, I do not think that my vote had much effect on them anyway. In the very least, that will save a little bit of time by only having to vote once. (You remember what I said about Americans being lazy voters?)

And:....All right, all right...I can see where you are coming from on the dysfunctional thing. But even so, Ricky, we are a long way from the Weimar Republic! [which by the way was a parliamentary government ]

Now do I have to buy you only one pint? Or two, one for each house? Or perhaps one per law passed by the 113th Congress? But from what the data seems to say, that might only get you slightly buzzed.

One more thing:

Is it possible to find out, mathematically, the minimum % of the vote over all the whole county needed for a party to gain a majority (218 of 435) of the seats in the House of Reps? Like, what percentage of the country (out of its actual votes cast for that party over the whole country) needs to vote for a Republican or a Democratic candidate, in order for that party to get 218 seats in the House of Representatives? Ditto for 51 of 100 seats in the Senate?

There a way to actually CALCULATE that? I was never good at even regular arithmetic (hence having been an arts major). Does anyone understand precisely what I mean by this?

JimHackerMP wrote:One more thing:

Is it possible to find out, mathematically, the minimum % of the vote over all the whole county needed for a party to gain a majority (218 of 435) of the seats in the House of Reps? Like, what percentage of the country (out of its actual votes cast for that party over the whole country) needs to vote for a Republican or a Democratic candidate, in order for that party to get 218 seats in the House of Representatives? Ditto for 51 of 100 seats in the Senate?

There a way to actually CALCULATE that? I was never good at even regular arithmetic (hence having been an arts major). Does anyone understand precisely what I mean by this?

Hmmm. I like the supposition. Working on it...

hacker

Orwell said it's a minority of one. Not very nice, though, Ricky; not very nice...

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results
Einstein

In that case Einstein should know.

hacker

There a way to actually CALCULATE that?

Not really
There are 435 variables, and as much as minority parties don't matter in the grand scheme in this calculation they make the difference. They received a total of 3.6% of congressiona votes in last election. How they spread out locally would be impossible to put into a calculation.
Practically you can look at results and see that the majority (53.8% of seats) got there with only 47.6% of the popular vote.
The minority 46.2 % of seats despite having the plurality of votes . 48.8%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ions,_2012

bbauska wrote:

JimHackerMP wrote:One more thing:

Is it possible to find out, mathematically, the minimum % of the vote over all the whole county needed for a party to gain a majority (218 of 435) of the seats in the House of Reps? Like, what percentage of the country (out of its actual votes cast for that party over the whole country) needs to vote for a Republican or a Democratic candidate, in order for that party to get 218 seats in the House of Representatives? Ditto for 51 of 100 seats in the Senate?

There a way to actually CALCULATE that? I was never good at even regular arithmetic (hence having been an arts major). Does anyone understand precisely what I mean by this?

Hmmm. I like the supposition. Working on it...

Premise:
1.) Take the 25 least populated states and calculate 50.1% of their 2012 election votes. This would assume the senatorial elections going to one party.
2.) Take the 218 least populated Congressional district and calculate 50.1% of their 2012 election votes. This would show the minimum population to carry that district.
3.) Add totals for 1 and 2 above.
4.) Compare to total population from 2012.

Tadah!

Sound right?

bbauska

Sound right?

What if the minority parties take 3 to 4% in each district. Now you only need 47% of the vote to gain the seat. And there are always minority candidates aren't there?

JimHackerMP wrote:It is not true that a bill *must* necessarily be introduced as two separate bills....though sometimes similar legislation is introduced into one chamber and the other simultaneously, with an SB# and a HB#. But then it will have to get reconciled via a conference committee (even a bill originating in one chamber will often have to get reconciled via conference committee because after the entire process of committee and amendment in the opposite chamber there can be differences).

Indeed you are correct that they do not all have to be. And sometimes, particularly if the second chamber decides it just wants to pass a Bill that has come from the other without amendment it will retain retain the same number.

Both chambers produce a lot of bills, of which a fairly small proportion are passed. Of those, a smaller yet proportion are passed in the other chamber.

But once through that sausage machine, very few are vetoed by a President.

bbauska wrote:Premise:
1.) Take the 25 least populated states and calculate 50.1% of their 2012 election votes. This would assume the senatorial elections going to one party.
2.) Take the 218 least populated Congressional district and calculate 50.1% of their 2012 election votes. This would show the minimum population to carry that district.
3.) Add totals for 1 and 2 above.
4.) Compare to total population from 2012.

Tadah!

Sound right?

It only works if you assume only two candidates in the general election. If there are three, then the theoretical threshold is 33.4%. For four candidates it's 25.1% etc...

In the US most seats are only contested by two candidates, but there are 'third party' candidates on the list in some places - mainly Libertarians and Greens.

There are also some places where seats are not opposed by the other main party, so while the candidate who wins gets a massive percentage of the vote, the turnout (especially in non-Presidential years) could be very low. Here's some of those who had an easy ride in 2012 - http://www.dfmpolitics.com/2012/09/ten- ... unopposed/

Which is why I posted it as a premise. I will not be doing THAT much data mining due to time constraints.

Please feel free to do it your way...