sass

Ricky probably hasn't chosen very good examples

Luckily I can rely on you.

Wouldn't that be a reason that there would NOT be much coming out of the legislative machine that is "hyper-partisan?

After all, if a bill cannot get through the Senate or HOR w/o being somewhat moderated, isn't that what should happen?

Perhaps some are looking for their agenda to be "rubber-stamped". To those people, I would ask, "Would you want your party to have an ability to stop or slow the government, if your party was not in power?

Gentlemen: I will post a more lucid and detailed reply later if I am still awake. If not, tomorrow night or early tomorrow morning. Because in the morning, which is the day of the midterm primary in the Free State, I have to stand at the polls all day tomorrow and hand out $50 bills in exchange for votes.

Well Rickyp your arguments are more convincing now that you have a bit more behind it. And I'm leaning more toward your arguments than before. But not entirely, however. I have received a reply from the Maryland Board of Elections (impressive to receive it so fast considering tomorrow is the election). It seems that Maryland somewhat disproves what you have learned from TN, OH, IL, AL and OH. In a lot of ways...

Again: I started this post for a frank and open exchange of views and have nothing against being argued with. But I still think some of you are looking at this through the eyes of your own countries' political systems, and not with the necessary degree of objectivity...not because you do not agree with me, but because...well I'll get to that later when I have time.

In any case, remember this: George Washington was inaugurated first President of the United States, under the present Constitution, on 30 April 1789. 225 years is an awfully long time for such a fatally-flawed (as you gentlemen seem to think) constitution to last. And don't try to convince me that that is because the problems that exist now from our two party system, or monetary corruption, did not exist in 1789. Because believe me guys, there were far worse problems than that and far less public oversight to fix them (what was it, like, 10% of the entire adult white male population was entitled to vote in the 1790s? I'll let somebody else find that out.) Certainly none of the very grave problems we have had over that long period of time--which I would venture to say were far more pressing than what we are debating--required a change to parliamentary government in order to fix.

There's also a noticeably-sized hole in some of your arguments, as well. Of course, what I have to say on *that* one will require some linguistic legerdemain to disprove, anyway.

Buenos noches, amigos.

bbauska

After all, if a bill cannot get through the Senate or HOR w/o being somewhat moderated, isn't that what should happen?
Perhaps some are looking for their agenda to be "rubber-stamped". To those people, I would ask, "Would you want your party to have an ability to stop or slow the government, if your party was not in power?

I'd ask you to consider whether or not some of the congressional procedures used to stall or freeze the progress of bills or the exectution of laws are all that democratic? Filibusters, super majority requirements, the ability of a single senator to stall action by the government, etc.
Then there's the surreptitious attacks on laws or regulations that have been passed. Attempting to cut off funding of programs .
The omnibus bills that hide legislation in a 10,000 page document. Ear Marking of budgets by individual senators... There's more. (I'm hopeful that Sass will once again come to my rescue with lots of examples)

There is such a concept as a "Loyal" opposition. That is if the opposition loses through the due process of representative democracy they respect the wishes of the majority and bend to their will. They don't attempt to sabotage the legislation. Intransigence of the kind seen since Gingrinch isn't loyal opposition. It doesn't respect representative democracy.
In a parliamentary system, when a majority is achieved in parliament, purposefull obstruction that amounts to a sabotage of the process is nearly impossible. But in Washington today, it is commonplace.

hacker

Well Rickyp your arguments are more convincing now that you have a bit more behind it

Perhaps i assumed that some of what i was saying was self evident. I'm amazed that if you are a poli sci grad that at some point you didn't study campaign finance laws, and the effects of rulings like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

hacker

And don't try to convince me that that is because the problems that exist now from our two party system, or monetary corruption, did not exist in 1789

Well, to start with there were 5 major candidates for President in 1789 none represented an organized Party.
And this is remarkably different than today:

Central Forums/Campaign Methods for Addressing Voters:

No formal campaign in 1788.
Candidates were to be passive and appear disinterested: The Presidency has “no fascinating allurements for me,” George Washington told friends

.

But if you aren't bent by facts .....and can't be convinced by actual history ....

http://presidentialcampaignselectionsre ... overviews/

rickyp wrote:bbauska

After all, if a bill cannot get through the Senate or HOR w/o being somewhat moderated, isn't that what should happen?
Perhaps some are looking for their agenda to be "rubber-stamped". To those people, I would ask, "Would you want your party to have an ability to stop or slow the government, if your party was not in power?

I'd ask you to consider whether or not some of the congressional procedures used to stall or freeze the progress of bills or the exectution of laws are all that democratic? Filibusters, super majority requirements, the ability of a single senator to stall action by the government, etc.
Then there's the surreptitious attacks on laws or regulations that have been passed. Attempting to cut off funding of programs .
The omnibus bills that hide legislation in a 10,000 page document. Ear Marking of budgets by individual senators... There's more. (I'm hopeful that Sass will once again come to my rescue with lots of examples)

There is such a concept as a "Loyal" opposition. That is if the opposition loses through the due process of representative democracy they respect the wishes of the majority and bend to their will. They don't attempt to sabotage the legislation. Intransigence of the kind seen since Gingrinch isn't loyal opposition. It doesn't respect representative democracy.
In a parliamentary system, when a majority is achieved in parliament, purposefull obstruction that amounts to a sabotage of the process is nearly impossible. But in Washington today, it is commonplace.

RickyP,
I am sure you know what a stickler I am for equality and hypocrisy. So, I will ask you the same question. Did you have a problem with the Democratic minority filibustering under George Bush and Republican majority? (I do expect a simple answer on this, btw)
Personally, I did have a problem with the minority filibustering, and still do. If the people have voted, you do not use tactics to disallow the bill. Surely you vote against the bill, but if it passes, it passes.
I feel the same way about laws passed that are not defended or upheld because the Justice Dept./Administration does not agree with them. A law is a law.

Damn it you guys are fast. I was supposed to be working the polls today--or as some of you pro-parliamentarians call it, the Street Corner If his chairman still doesn't call me I think I'm going to vote myself. (Darn it, where's my chequebook?) Then I'll come back and frame a more detailed reply.

For now all I can say is that I'm going to have to carefully craft this reply, as Ricky you have brought up some excellent points, but [le sigh...] they have a couple minor holes in them. And, I still see holes in the absolute pro-parliament argument (or anti-presidential argument, rather) and I'd like to explain my position further, but it's going to take a little more verbal finagling.

In the mean time, Ricky, I resent the insinuation that I am so incredibly hard-headed that I cannot be swayed by facts or by history. I can, and in the past, I have been swayed by both. Quite a lot, actually. I know you didn't actually call me stupid or anything, but you are starting to get a little bit smug with me when you say things like that to people.

But I mean no offense, I realize debate like this can get a little heated and I'm willing to take it in stride.

PS, Sassenach: about producing "a STRONG GOVERNMENT with the ABILITY TO ACT." Shame on you for such horrid profanity. <Hacker covers his virgin ears>

bbauska

Did you have a problem with the Democratic minority filibustering under George Bush and Republican majority? (I do expect a simple answer on this, btw)

sure

Although the use of procedural tricks that are used instead of actual speechifying is worse. At least speechifying lasts only as long as the bladder of the speaker and can be entertaining.

hacker

In the mean time, Ricky, I resent the insinuation that I am so incredibly hard-headed that I cannot be swayed by facts or by history

Insinuate?
You wrote this...
hacker

And don't try to convince me that that is because the problems that exist now from our two party system, or monetary corruption, did not exist in 1789.

How am i to interpret that as anything but intransigence?

JimHackerMP wrote:As Im not feeling really well today, I emailed the Maryland Board of Elections and the Carroll County Board of Elections to see how they are appointed/hired. So we shall see what happens when I get written back by them. Though they probably are busy and if I do not get a response within a day or two I'll call them on the phone or go there in person once I am feeling better.

You could of course look at the Maryland Board's website to see how they are selected:

http://www.elections.state.md.us/about/index.html

Maryland Board of Elections wrote:The State Board of Elections is made up of five members who serve four-year terms and represent both principal political parties — three of the majority and two of the minority party. The members are appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate of Maryland.

The current board members are:

Bobbie S. Mack (D), Chairman
David J. McManus, Jr. (R), Vice Chairman
Patrick J. Hogan (D)
Charles E. Thomann (R)

The Carroll County Board site (and the old version) do not say how they are chosen, but five of the members are registered as party affiliated, and I have found this on here http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/36 ... #elections

Maryland Manual On-line wrote:Appointed by Governor with Senate consent to 4-year terms:
Gail S. Riley (D), President (chosen by Board), 2015
Griffith B. Manahan (R); Phillip R. Miller (D). Substitutes: Hope Jacobs (D); April R. Rose (R). Terms expire 2015.

Again however, I have run for office in Maryland before so I know at least in part that you're wrong about the boards of election, state or county, being non-independent.

Looks like he was spot on to me. Appointed by the governor and state senate, all politically affiliated on both boards.

Independent oversight of the electoral process is clearly a much better system. You need only look at the ridiculous boundaries for House seats to see where unrestricted gerrymandering can lead, and this is just one of the areas with a high potential for bias and/or corruption.

Couple things. The Governor is a Democrat. The State Senate (47 total) = 35 Democrats and 12 Republicans. They could easily have stacked every county board with Democrats only. But they didn't, did they? As far as previous occupants of the governor's mansion in the last century, an overwhelming FIVE have been Republicans: only one of the five won re-election, and another of them was Spiro Agnew (who was only governor for two years when he resigned on January 9, 1969 so he could be the new Vice-President, 11 days later).

OK I understand the need for independent oversight. And I am assuming that by "independent" you mean "unaffiliated", right? I was not debating the advantages of independent oversight, nor do I debate the current lack thereof, to some degree (greater or lesser extent in some states).

What I have been trying to debate is: a Presidential Republic, or a presidential system in general (especially with a dominant two-party system) does not actually cause this lack of independent oversight or the campaign finance issues we have, nor would changing to a parliamentary democracy (especially with a multi-party system) automatically fix this stuff. You are still looking at the picture through the eyes of the type of government with which you all are comfortable. It sounds to me like "If you were just like us you'd be happier."

P.S., these boards of elections do NOT draw the boundaries. The state legislature and governor do. THAT I would DEFINITELY agree is 100% corrupt to the core. The Democrats, as if they don't already have a massive majority in both houses of the state legislature already (plus 7 of the 8 congressmen elected from Maryland are Democrats) have managed to make their dominion of the state legislature and seats in the U.S. House of Reps. permanent. I would agree in the case of the gerrymandering, it's the fox watching the hen house.

Actually, you're allowed to protest the redistricting plan--done every ten years following the decennial censuses (censi?) we take--in Maryland by petition, which then puts the redistricting plan on the election ballot (as a referendum/plebiscite to vote yes/no on). That was done by a lot of Republican voters, by petition, as per the state constitution. Alas, the voters of the state of Maryland overwhelmingly approved the piece of crap Governor O'Malley and the General Assembly coughed up.

Nice election last night but we lost unfortunately; fourth place out of six candidates ("pick no more than three" & top three win).

Clever comment I must admit Ricky:

At least speechifying lasts only as long as the bladder of the speaker and can be entertaining.

But of course then-Democratic Senator J. Strom Thurmond of SC is in the Guinness Book of Records for the world's longest legislative filibuster, a 24 hour drone railing against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Thankfully his efforts failed. I also understand that, during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton there was a senator who had to pee in a container of some sort, as the senators were not allowed off the floor during the rather-lengthy proceedings.

Oh and here's the response from the Board of Elections I received:

Thank you for your email inquiry, it was forwarded to me for reply. The State and Local Board of Election members are appointed by the Governor. The names of possible members are submitted to the Governor from the central committee's of each political party.

The State Administrator was originally appointed by the Governor but then re-appointed by the State Board of Elections members. The State Administrator has the right to appoint a Deputy State Administrator.

The staff of the State and Local Boards of Elections are generally State Personnel merit system employees. They are generally chosen from eligible lists created from State employment applications submitted to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and then evaluated for qualifications by the staff of DBM.

Everyday functions of the Boards are carried out by the staff.

hacker

What I have been trying to debate is: a Presidential Republic, or a presidential system in general (especially with a dominant two-party system) does not actually cause this lack of independent oversight or the campaign finance issues we have, nor would changing to a parliamentary democracy (especially with a multi-party system) automatically fix this stuff. You are still looking at the picture through the eyes of the type of government with which you all are comfortable. It sounds to me like "If you were just like us you'd be happier."

You should try reading what has been written. Both Danivon and I have pointed to problems in parliamentary democracies as well as problems in the US duopoly system.
And my original response to you was that public financing for political campaigns was the solution to reducing much of the corruption and eliminating much of the power of the wealthy in manipulating the system to ensure that laws and regulations are written to benefit them.
Public financing could happen in the US, at least theoretically as there is nothing constitutionally precluding public financing. However, the SCOTUS is protecting the rights of corporations and wealthy individuals to use their money in PACS and personal contributions to an almost unlimited level. So I think that makes the US system uniquely challenged .
If you want to complain about the cost of campaigns, the first problem is the inflationary pressure brought about by competitive spending. If my opponents is going to spend $500 million I need to spend 6....
And if you think that Congress isn't beholden to Wall Street and corporations, and that legislation isn't written to specifically benefit large campaign donors then I have a bridge in New Jersey I'd like to sell you. (Just as soon as Governor Christie gets through financing its repair with funds ear marked for other projects. )

I think public financing of elections is far more likely in almost any other modern nation than the US. The experience in northern Europe indicates it leads to great democratization and effectively means corporations find ways to work within the rules.... rather than managing the writing rules for their own convenience. But in the US, corporations are people...

OK.....I think I understand now. I have never doubted that Washington (or Annapolis) wasn't an American version of the famous Cloaca Maxima. I just did not agree on the extent. Thanks for making it clearer to me.

I must admit, especially to you, I'm also wrong about not being hard headed. I certainly can be sometimes. And if I pushed the envelope a bit too far and got a little b***chy about it please forgive me. Especially for calling you smug; that was way out of the ballpark. I actually hold the opinions of the people here on Redscape quite highly, however heated it may get at times.

hacker

Especially for calling you smug; that was way out of the ballpark

Oh i don't know. i can be smug.