5 ms·

The trouble is that both parties seem to view an overreaching executive branch as a feature of the game, not a bug. This is similar to how powerful market incum

by jdc 10y ago

The trouble is that both parties seem to view an overreaching executive branch as a feature of the game, not a bug. This is similar to how powerful market incumbents prefer a winner-takes-all economy. After all if you have a 50% chance of taking the whole pot you, do you want to change the rules?

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> After all if you have a 50% chance of taking the whole pot you, do you want to change the rules? If your choices are to have a 99% chance of taking 50% of the pot or to have a 50% chance of taking 100% of the pot and a 50% chance of someone else taking it and you being imprisoned or murdered by them, you pick the one that doesn't involve a significant risk of catastrophe. The problem is you don't get to pick before the election, you get pick after. And then it isn't a 50% chance anymore. If you won the pot you have no incentive to change and if you lost then you don't have the power to change. This is one of the problematic consequences of the 17th Amendment. Originally US Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. The purpose of the US Senate was to represent the states in the federal government, so it was inherently a check on federal power. States don't want too strong a US President. But we got rid of that in a fit of populism in the 20th century. Meanwhile it's still the case that only a third of the Senate seats are on the ballot in a given election. And consider what the circumstance is when you simultaneously want to limit the executive and have the power to do it: It's the lame duck session. To do it you need a) to currently have control of government (Presidency + House + a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), and b) to not control any of those in the incoming government, so you fear what the new government will do, enough to pass laws to limit their power. But since only a third of Senators can change at once, and it's unheard of that all open seats switch from one party to the other, that never actually happens. So the President gets stronger but never weaker, because we decided to dismantle a check on federal power and replace it with nothing.
int_19h 10y ago
To be more specific, they see it as a feature when they're in a position of power (where they can actually do something about it), and a bug when they're not (where they can't fix it).

by jdc 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> After all if you have a 50% chance of taking the whole pot you, do you want to change the rules? If your choices are to have a 99% chance of taking 50% of the pot or to have a 50% chance of taking 100% of the pot and a 50% chance of someone else taking it and you being imprisoned or murdered by them, you pick the one that doesn't involve a significant risk of catastrophe. The problem is you don't get to pick before the election, you get pick after. And then it isn't a 50% chance anymore. If you won the pot you have no incentive to change and if you lost then you don't have the power to change. This is one of the problematic consequences of the 17th Amendment. Originally US Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. The purpose of the US Senate was to represent the states in the federal government, so it was inherently a check on federal power. States don't want too strong a US President. But we got rid of that in a fit of populism in the 20th century. Meanwhile it's still the case that only a third of the Senate seats are on the ballot in a given election. And consider what the circumstance is when you simultaneously want to limit the executive and have the power to do it: It's the lame duck session. To do it you need a) to currently have control of government (Presidency + House + a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate), and b) to not control any of those in the incoming government, so you fear what the new government will do, enough to pass laws to limit their power. But since only a third of Senators can change at once, and it's unheard of that all open seats switch from one party to the other, that never actually happens. So the President gets stronger but never weaker, because we decided to dismantle a check on federal power and replace it with nothing.

int_19h 10y ago

To be more specific, they see it as a feature when they're in a position of power (where they can actually do something about it), and a bug when they're not (where they can't fix it).