Democracy be damned

[John Smith]

Anyone who wants to talk about ramming through bills needs to watch this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46973330

[Curtism]

That is truly disturbing.

Thanks for the heads up, John.

[Norman Bernstein]

Sorry, but I think Maddow is off base on this one (and I consider her to be the smartest political commentator on TV today). Her complaint really is nothing more than a complaint that the GP had the 2/3rds majority to be able to employ the 'immediate effect' clause of their constitution. I won't deny that it had the effect of 'ramming through' legislation... but there was nothing immoral, or illegal, about what they did... they had the power, and they used it.

[Curtism]

Did you watch the whole segment, Norman? The GOP doesn't have a 2/3 majority in their house and the Dems were voting as a block against legislation and they passed bills under the 'immediate effect' rule anyway.

[Waddie]

Did you watch the whole segment, Norman? The GOP doesn't have a 2/3 majority in their house and the Dems were voting as a block against legislation and they passed bills under the 'immediate effect' rule anyway.

So you're all upset that one set of politicians used their muscle to manipulate the system just enough to get through something they wanted. Sort of like recess appointments?

regards,
Waddie

[Curtism]

So you're all upset that one set of politicians used their muscle to manipulate the system just enough to get through something they wanted. Sort of like recess appointments?

regards,
Waddie

Aren't you the guy who was expressing that you want to maintain a two party system the other day? What changed since then?

[Norman Bernstein]

Did you watch the whole segment, Norman? The GOP doesn't have a 2/3 majority in their house and the Dems were voting as a block against legislation and they passed bills under the 'immediate effect' rule anyway.

I'll have to watch it again... you're saying that they passed immediate effect legislation without the constitutionally required 2/3rds vote?

[Curtism]

I'll have to watch it again... you're saying that they passed immediate effect legislation without the constitutionally required 2/3rds vote?

That's what I got out out of the story. The Reps in the house don't hold enough seats (63 R's to 47 D's) to impliment laws under the 'immediate effect' rule without help from 10 Dem's, which they didn't have on the bills Rachael mentioned.

If you watch it again and find something I missed, by all means, let me know.

[Waddie]

Aren't you the guy who was expressing that you want to maintain a two party system the other day? What changed since then?

You haven't ever heard that from me. I think a society becoming as diverse racially, economically, environmentally and socially as we now are would do better with a parliamentary system where governments are formed by coalitions, and things get done because the government in power has pretty much free reign. The two party system is just too restrictive to represent much diversity. It's day is done.

regards,
Waddie

[Norman Bernstein]

Ahhh, OK..... the issue was doing it on a 'voice vote', when they technically might not have had enough house members to pass the 2/3rds majority need. I get it.

Are Michigan Republicans Violating the State's Constitution?

Rachel Maddow has an must-see report showing how the Republican-controlled Michigan legislature has used voice votes to declare the constitutionally-mandated two-thirds majority needed for laws to take "immediate effect."

Maddow calls the practice "the most radical thing Republicans have done anywhere in the country."

[David W Pratt]

President of the Senate here in RI used a voice vote to derail some immigration law a couple years ago.

[wardd]

Sorry, but I think Maddow is off base on this one (and I consider her to be the smartest political commentator on TV today). Her complaint really is nothing more than a complaint that the GP had the 2/3rds majority to be able to employ the 'immediate effect' clause of their constitution. I won't deny that it had the effect of 'ramming through' legislation... but there was nothing immoral, or illegal, about what they did... they had the power, and they used it.

but is it ethical?

[Tom Montgomery]

I think a society becoming as diverse racially, economically, environmentally and socially as we now are would do better with a parliamentary system where governments are formed by coalitions, and things get done because the government in power has pretty much free reign. The two party system is just too restrictive to represent much diversity. It's day is done.

We finally agree.

The problem is that such a change would require a constitutional convention. I suspect the Bill of Rights would be trashed.

[John Smith]

Sorry, but I think Maddow is off base on this one (and I consider her to be the smartest political commentator on TV today). Her complaint really is nothing more than a complaint that the GP had the 2/3rds majority to be able to employ the 'immediate effect' clause of their constitution. I won't deny that it had the effect of 'ramming through' legislation... but there was nothing immoral, or illegal, about what they did... they had the power, and they used it.

You missed the primary point. They don't have the 2/3 votes. They only determine they do. Or say they do. Watch it again; to the end.

[John Smith]

we finally agree.

The problem is that such a change would require a constitutional convention. I suspect the bill of rights would be trashed.

please watch the video.

The republicans are claiming a 2/3 majority vote and denying an actual count of votes. In the video there is a video of a floor vote. The guy with the gavel takes three seconds to count how many rose. No democrat rose, so they could not possibly have had a 2/3 majority, but he claimed one.

There is a lawsuit filed by the democrats because their votes are not being counted and laws are being passed and immediately implemented, contrary to the state's constitution, based on an exception for emergencies which is being abused, and the necessary 2/3 is being claimed and recorded when it doesn't exist.

[Tom Montgomery]

It is outrageous, of course. But history has shown that Republicans are not interested in counting all the votes.

[Curtism]

Aren't you the guy who was expressing that you want to maintain a two party system the other day? What changed since then?

You haven't ever heard that from me.

Maybe I misunderstood your post from 3 days ago.

I don't care who runs or who gets elected so long as we maintain a divided government. I don't want one party to ever be in control again.

regards,
Waddie

[Waddie]

Curtism, how does my quote from 3 days ago imply support for a 2 party system? That's right, I never want one of the 2 parties to be in total control ever again. I'd rather have stalemate. But a coalition formed by several parties in a Parliamentary system could have my support.

regards,
Waddie

[Curtism]

Curtism, how does my quote from 3 days ago imply support for a 2 party system?

Aparently I took your comment in context since the other thread was about Mitt Romneys campaign, and since he's not running for prime minister of some other country. So, unless Canada or the UK otherthrows our Government and installs their own, the US is (supposedly) a two party system (which is thrown into serious doubt by instances such as the story in this OP) I just assumed we were talking about American politics.

That's right, I never want one of the 2 parties to be in total control ever again. I'd rather have stalemate. But a coalition formed by several parties in a Parliamentary system could have my support.

regards,
Waddie

I dissagree about the stalemate, much the same as I dissagree with one party running herd on the minority in Michigans legislature, but the rest of this sounds reasonable. Which is why we are unlikely to see such a system here anytime soon.

I hear Canada is nice, if you can handle the climate, and they have a health care system that's focused on the health of it's citizens.

[John Smith]

Curtism, how does my quote from 3 days ago imply support for a 2 party system? That's right, I never want one of the 2 parties to be in total control ever again. I'd rather have stalemate. But a coalition formed by several parties in a Parliamentary system could have my support.

regards,
Waddie

The number of parties question comes along frequently. I would support a system with more parties, if the system was designed for more parties. If you could vote for a first choice, a second choice, etc. and if your first choice didn't win your vote would then go to your second choice. is one idea, A run off election is another.

I'm not sure that more parties would help; they'd like increase the need for money. What I would dearly love is a no party system.

[John Smith]

Aparently I took your comment in context since the other thread was about Mitt Romneys campaign, and since he's not running for prime minister of some other country. So, unless Canada or the UK otherthrows our Government and installs their own, the US is (supposedly) a two party system (which is thrown into serious doubt by instances such as the story in this OP) I just assumed we were talking about American politics.



I dissagree about the stalemate, much the same as I dissagree with one party running herd on the minority in Michigans legislature, but the rest of this sounds reasonable. Which is why we are unlikely to see such a system here anytime soon.

I hear Canada is nice, if you can handle the climate, and they have a health care system that's focused on the health of it's citizens.

MIchigan simply needs all votes recorded. Why we can't count votes as accurately as we count money puzzles me.

Stalemates don't help. I'd love to see the democrats pick up actual control of both the White House and the Congress. Then they have no excuse.