+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: Broken Government (/Thread-Broken-Government)
RE: Broken Government - fredtoast - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you'd have no problem with someone like Donald Trump being president until they died?
Personally, yes. But that has no effect on the way election laws should be written.
Why force out people who are so good at their job that voters want to re-elect them?
RE: Broken Government - jj22 - 09-23-2020
I have to agree with Fred here. Lifetime appointments (Scotus) is different then being reelected a number of times giving you life long politicians.
My question on the SCOTUS part is will them being frequently changed make the institution more partisan?
RE: Broken Government - PhilHos - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Personally, yes. But that has no effect on the way election laws should be written.
Why force out people who are so good at their job that voters want to re-elect them?
I applaud your consistency, but I personally don't think we should have career politicians.
RE: Broken Government - fredtoast - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I applaud your consistency, but I personally don't think we should have career politicians.
Why not?
If you needed heart surgery would you refuse to go to a "career heart surgeon"?
RE: Broken Government - PhilHos - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why not?
If you needed heart surgery would you refuse to go to a "career heart surgeon"?
Tell me what schools do you go to and what degrees do you get to become a career politician.
The problem is that career politicians almost always care more about getting re-elected than actually serving their districts. They tend to forget they are there to serve their constituents and care more about themselves and what they can get out their time in office. There's also the resistance to change (not just in laws, but in things like procedures, too). They tend to discount the newcomers' thoughts, ideas, and opinions.
These are just off the top of my head.
RE: Broken Government - bfine32 - 09-23-2020
As a proud citizen of the state of KY I don't want no stinking term limits.
Uncle Mitch takes care of us.
RE: Broken Government - BrownAssClown - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why not?
If you needed heart surgery would you refuse to go to a "career heart surgeon"?
Many reasons, 1.) These career politicians seem to become less flexible and more set in their ways over time. 2.) These politicians sometimes worry about getting re-elected for the 10th time and don't vote for what's right or what they believe in, they vote to get re-elected. You might say that's the will of the people, well it's the will of some of the people of the party they represent. NOT always the people they represent as a whole. 3.) While any politician can be corrupt seems to me the longer these people are in power, the more corrupt they become, IMHO.
RE: Broken Government - Belsnickel - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:08 PM)jj22 Wrote: I have to agree with Fred here. Lifetime appointments (Scotus) is different then being reelected a number of times giving you life long politicians.
My question on the SCOTUS part is will them being frequently changed make the institution more partisan?
The answer there is yes. I think putting an age cap on it is kind of a good middle ground. It doesn't allow for a regular cycle like set terms would, but it doesn't allow for the unexpected, either.
RE: Broken Government - fredtoast - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: They tend to forget they are there to serve their constituents and care more about themselves and what they can get out their time in office.
If this were true then they should not get re-elected.
Why would voters re-elect someone who did nothing to serve or help them? In my experience the politicians that get re-elected are the ones that make the voters the happiest. The ones who don't care about the voters don't get re-elected.
RE: Broken Government - fredtoast - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:44 PM)BrownAssClown Wrote: You might say that's the will of the people, well it's the will of some of the people of the party they represent. NOT always the people they represent as a whole.
In a democracy the voters should get to decide what is best for them.
Why should your opinion count more than a majority of the voters?
RE: Broken Government - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 02:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ah, but statewide elections are not for one president, they're for multiple electors. There's technically multiple post to be awarded. Not to mention, the reason states began to do this was to help the dominant faction in that state.
For Senate there is only two. Like is or not our nation is a union of quasi independent states and it was very important to the Framers that those states have a large, and often disproportionate, say in the national government.
Quote:Technically the Senate is not functioning exactly as intended. We elect our Senators. The Framers intended for the elite in state legislatures to select the best people, not the masses to select whoever they want.
Sorry, but that's parsing hairs a bit. The crux of the reason the Senate exists is to give each state an equal say in the upper house. How those senators are elected/appointed is tertiary to that intent.
Quote:I also do not think it's a matter of not knowing civics but disagreeing with it. The Framers were no infallible.
Of course not, hence the constitutional amendment process. They did a damn sight better job than anyone else of their time and we still have the only government with the types of rights we enjoy on the planet. I'm talking about all rights btw.
(09-23-2020, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I still maintain that this idea makes zero sense for the POTUS. The president oversees the executive branch of all of the people, not all of the states. The idea makes sense for a confederation, which we are not. The original idea made sense when the general public wouldn't know too much about the candidates, but we are a long ways off from then.
Yes, this is a fundamental difference between you and I. It oddly makes you more of a Federalist and me less of one, when I think in most circumstances the opposite is true.
Quote:It's interesting, because I agree with you, but I still think the House is a far cry from the "citizen legislators" that it was intended to be. Honestly, the only change I want for confirmations, though, is that it be made a requirement for constitutional officers to be elected with a 2/3rds vote. I don't care about lower judges or some of the other political appointees, but constitutional officers (i.e. SCOTUS) should meet a higher bar.
I honestly have zero issue with that and would be in favor of an amendment requiring this. It cuts both ways and may actually resuscitate some bi-partisanship.
(09-23-2020, 03:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. Single biggest reform would be publicly funded elections. If you take money out of the equation suddenly third parties have a shot.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop the clock. I am in complete agreement. I think all electioneering should come from a public fund. Everyone who wants to participate in an election would donate to such a fund and then all funds would be divided equally. The only exception to this would be person to person canvassing for which no one would be allowed to be paid. People should be allowed to do what they want on their own time.
Quote:2. Make all (or a large percentage) of State Representatives at large and take the top finishers from the state wide election. For example if four seats were at large then the top 4 finishers would be elected. Again this would help third parties.
Interesting idea, but would likely fuel hyper partisanship in states that lean severely in one way or another.
Quote:3. Have EC delegates awarded by percentage instead of winner take all. Right now my vote is meaningless in Tennessee because a Republican is going to win the state. The main reason voter turnout is so low in Presidential elections is that most states are already decided before the election. Instead we should make every persons vote count.
I face the exact same issue but disagree on this for reasons stated above.
Quote:Our country is so evenly divided that even a small percentage of third party seats would create a situation that forced compromise.
I agree on this, but I'd really hope it didn't become European style (especially Italian) in which there are an excessive number of parties represented in the House.
Quote:Have all tie votes in the Senate decided by a cage match between each parties champion.
I'd definitely pay to see Mitch and Bernie duke it out. Or Trump and Biden.
(09-23-2020, 03:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you'd have no problem with someone like Donald Trump being president until they died?
Term limits for POTUS is a good idea, it's far too powerful a position and unseating an incumbent is difficult. Term limits for governor, mayor or Congress don't serve a valid purpose IMO. Honestly without term limits Giuliani would still be mayor of NYC, he'd still be beloved and NYC wouldn't be the utter shithole it has become under Deblasio.
(09-23-2020, 05:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The answer there is yes. I think putting an age cap on it is kind of a good middle ground. It doesn't allow for a regular cycle like set terms would, but it doesn't allow for the unexpected, either.
You'd instantly run into discrimination problems I think. We're not talking about positions that demand a certain level of physical fitness like law enforcement.
RE: Broken Government - BmorePat87 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For Senate there is only two. Like is or not our nation is a union of quasi independent states and it was very important to the Framers that those states have a large, and often disproportionate, say in the national government.a direct election of the executive doesn't make it any less of a federal system.
Sorry, but that's parsing hairs a bit. The crux of the reason the Senate exists is to give each state an equal say in the upper house. How those senators are elected/appointed is tertiary to that intent.
Of course not, hence the constitutional amendment process. They did a damn sight better job than anyone else of their time and we still have the only government with the types of rights we enjoy on the planet. I'm talking about all rights btw.
You can call it parsing hairs, but you said "exact" and its a fundamental shift and one of only 27 formal changes we've made to our constitution in 230+ years.
RE: Broken Government - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 07:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: a direct election of the executive doesn't make it any less of a federal system.
No, but it does give the individual states no independent say.
Quote:You can call it parsing hairs, but you said "exact" and its a fundamental shift and one of only 27 formal changes we've made to our constitution in 230+ years.
What's more important, the basic reason for the existence of the Senate or how those Senators are elected/appointed? The latter is certainly an issue of importance but it doesn't change the basic intent of the upper chamber, which is that every single state will have an exactly equal say in the Senate.
RE: Broken Government - BmorePat87 - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, but it does give the individual states no independent say.
What's more important, the basic reason for the existence of the Senate or how those Senators are elected/appointed? The latter is certainly an issue of importance but it doesn't change the basic intent of the upper chamber, which is that every single state will have an exactly equal say in the Senate.
But it gives every single resident of that state a say. And states are not homogenous, but a winner take all system treats them as such.
Well, you didn't say which was more important, you said functioning exactly as intended. But I would argue that making it more elite by having legislatures select Senators was as important.
RE: Broken Government - Belsnickel - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'd instantly run into discrimination problems I think. We're not talking about positions that demand a certain level of physical fitness like law enforcement.
If it was in the Constitution, then it couldn't be unconstitutional discrimination. Interestingly enough, though, there are currently mandatory retirement ages for judges in some states: https://ballotpedia.org/Mandatory_retirement
You can see that Virginia is in the mix, there, which is why I saw no problems with it because it's how we do business.
RE: Broken Government - Benton - 09-23-2020
(09-23-2020, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As a proud citizen of the state of KY I don't want no stinking term limits.
Uncle Mitch takes care of us.
Honestly, how?
Kentucky overall is slightly better economically than when Mitch took office four decades ago, but only as the national average for incomes goes up. That's mostly due to expansion in the Louisville area and a handful of tourism initiatives by Dems administrations. The old economy was tobacco and coal. Mitch has personally made a lot of money distancing himself from coal reparations or supporting a coal power initiative. It's resulted in some of the poorest communities in the country in the far east and west. We've got counties out here where the average household income is what it was when Mitch took office.
In that vein, McConnell just blinks when asked about efforts like SOAR in the east or hemp farming here in the west. He could secure funds or at least voice support. Instead he just says people need more information and then changes it to some attack on liberals.
Uncle Mitch hasn't done anything for Kentucky families in decades.
RE: Broken Government - Dill - 09-24-2020
I'd say government is breaking, but not "broken."
Though it may indeed break in November.
But why assume the fault lies in the Constitution, and so could be fixed by re-arranging some points?
I am not an expert on Constitutional history, but I am not convinced that current divisions are a consequence of some failure in current foundations/arrangements of government, though I am not denying that there might be individual laws that contribute to them, create imbalances of power etc. (E.g., FCC or campaign finance regulations.)
RE: Broken Government - Belsnickel - 09-24-2020
(09-24-2020, 12:39 AM)Dill Wrote: I'd say government is breaking, but not "broken."
Though it may indeed break in November.
But why assume the fault lies in the Constitution, and so could be fixed by re-arranging some points?
I am not an expert on Constitutional history, but I am not convinced that current divisions are a consequence of some failure in current foundations/arrangements of government, though I am not denying that there might be individual laws that contribute to them, create imbalances of power etc. (E.g., FCC or campaign finance regulations.)
Here is why I see amending the constitution or starting over as the way forward. The current division in the country doesn't bother me. People talk about us being more divided than ever, which may or may not be true, but we've always had divisions. There is nothing politically that will fix it. However, the ability for the government to function as it should has become an issue due to this division. One of the largest reasons for this is the discovery of how reliant upon norms our system has been.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, norms are the guardrails of democracy. I forget what democratic theorist that came from at this point, but someone far smarter than me said it. The norms, the unwritten rules of our political system, kept our democracy afloat. As those guardrails have been torn down from repeated ramming by wannabe tyrants over the years, we see the holes in this system. What we need to do is rebuild them and reinforce them with constitutional and/or statutory law. The norms that can so easily be violated with no remorse from those doing it and no repercussions from the voting populace need to become stronger than norms. We need to codify them in ways that can't be so easily ignored and cannot be so easily undone.
RE: Broken Government - Dill - 09-25-2020
(09-24-2020, 07:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is why I see amending the constitution or starting over as the way forward. The current division in the country doesn't bother me. People talk about us being more divided than ever, which may or may not be true, but we've always had divisions. There is nothing politically that will fix it. However, the ability for the government to function as it should has become an issue due to this division. One of the largest reasons for this is the discovery of how reliant upon norms our system has been.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I am not bothered by division in principle. In fact, checks and balances won't work without it. So I don't want to fix "division."
I agree that the division we have now makes government unable to function, but that is because of the nature of the division--it is now between liberal and illiberal voters. "Illiberal" here means what it means in other places where democracy is under siege, like Hungary and Turkey--grievance driven pluralities/majorities who reject rule of law in favor of a "strong" nationalist (as opposed to "national") leader. Such voters reject the norms you refer to, and elect leaders who publicly "perform" their violation to cheering masses. Like journalistic standards, democratic norms appear to them largely as "bias," partisan restrictions on their leaders' actions which favor liberals.
But in the US case, the primary cause of this rejection of democratic/liberal norms lies in civil society, outside government, where a competing set of norms, originating decades ago in opposition to integration, has been cultivated in a system of churches, schools, media and think tanks, rewarding politicians who push their agenda. And in consequence of this rewarding, the two major parties no longer contain BOTH liberals and conservatives, as was the case until the Gingrich revolution.
(09-24-2020, 07:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I've said it before, and I'll say it again, norms are the guardrails of democracy. I forget what democratic theorist that came from at this point, but someone far smarter than me said it. The norms, the unwritten rules of our political system, kept our democracy afloat. As those guardrails have been torn down from repeated ramming by wannabe tyrants over the years, we see the holes in this system. What we need to do is rebuild them and reinforce them with constitutional and/or statutory law. The norms that can so easily be violated with no remorse from those doing it and no repercussions from the voting populace need to become stronger than norms. We need to codify them in ways that can't be so easily ignored and cannot be so easily undone.
So I totally agree with you about the "guardrails of democracy," including that they have been or are in the process of being torn down.
I also grant that this tearing down has partly resulted in legislation and executive behavior which has further worked to government dysfunction. The office of the presidency was created for people who had deeply internalized democratic norms, and so could be trusted with the immense prerogative of that office because their own values would prevent them from abusing the power entrusted to them to increase their own wealth and favor friends.
But I am not sure that "holes in the system" can be repaired by legislation. I am not sure what "starting over" would look like, or if possible given that the party of "no" still gets to vote.
I don't believe we can really "codify" norms from the top down the way we can, say, add restrictions to a president's war powers. Rather, there has to be some counterweight in civil society to re-affirm those "guardrails," to explain them, make sure they are taught in schools. And this cannot be an easy task, as the project itself will be characterized as a wholly ideological imposition of liberal propaganda on the populace. Another "hoax."
I very much agree with you that these norms have to be strengthened. If they can be ignored we have lost our country.
RE: Broken Government - NATI BENGALS - 10-06-2020
So a prez who most voters did not vote for and was saved from impeach by votes from senators who represent a minority of population will stop negotiating to help our struggling country and instead focus on jamming through a scotus nominee breaking their own rule. And we will have a 3rd scotus inserted by a president who was not voted for by the majority and senators who represent a minority of the population.
Broke as f
Just flat out undemocratic stuff going on.
This is not a representative government.