4 ms·

Then they should vote against it instead of hiding. If that's not sufficient, then there is something broken in the political machine.

klodolph 5y ago
I'm not sure it's so "broken". The consequences of breaking a rule are just that you have to... deal with the consequences of breaking that rule. To the extent that that rule has consequences, and the consequences are enforced. Like, if you stop showing up at your job because you disagree with the labor conditions, you get fired. But if everyone in the factory stops showing up at their job, it's suddenly called a "strike" and the apparatus for punishment doesn't work any more... maybe this time, the consequences for the same action are "you get a raise and better healthcare". The rules for legislative bodies generally allow legislators to take more and more extreme actions to influence which laws get passed. As legislators take more extreme actions, the consequences get correspondingly more severe. This seems like "functioning as intended" to me. The absentee legislators have skin in the game... it's not like they can freely walk away from the legislature whenever they disagree with a law. Just like a striking factory worker can freely walk away from their job at the factory and go on strike. These more extreme actions fizzle out, force the other side to reach a compromise, or backfire. The idea that people "should" just sit down and talk things out doesn't scan, IMO. These people are accountable to the people who elected them first, and the legislative body second.
lax4ever 5y ago
I also don't think the system is broken. Yes, absolutely they should be voting against it. That is their prerogative, even duty, as elected members of a representative republic. However, for every vote there are going to be people who agree and people who disagree and both sides are accountable to the people who voted them in. The system is not broken when everyone does their job, regardless of the yay/nay count on a vote. The system breaks when those elected refuse to do the job that they were elected to do.
- salawat 5y ago
  They are doing their job. You just aren't looking at the big picture enough. If they show up so the procedural quorum is met, then they haven't done anything to keep what they are against from happening. If anything, this should demonstrate that the winner takes all model of elections has driven us to a polarization where nuclear options are being deployed. This means packing either sides ball and going home is a better, more likely option than achieving any compromise. This is the danger of diametrically opposed political tmrhetoric. If the majority of legislators are heavily polarized rather than swingable centrists, nothing will ever get done.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    Two things I disagree with... this isn't the "nuclear option", and I'm not sure that this is connected with modern polarization. The reason that these quorum rules are so old is because people have been evading quorum for decades or centuries. Just take Bob Packwood (D-OR) as an example... in February 1988, he was forcibly carried into the US Senate chamber by capitol police. Or look at Abraham Lincoln, who tried and failed to evade quorum in the Illinois senate in December 1840. The nuclear option, IMO, is civil war. Which has happened and continues to happen across the world, at great cost to life. Absentee legislators... IMO, just bureaucracy in action. I will accept an inefficient or wasteful bureaucracy any day, if the alternatives are worse--and there are many plausible worse alternatives.
    - salawat 5y ago
      I use nuclear option in the sense that in a functioning legislature, strategic denial of quorum should be an unneeded arcanity. We are not in those times. I'd actually be curious to research how frequent the act is. Intuitively, one would hope it only happens in exceptional circumstances; but it's definitely something that with increasing frequency, we should be taking as an indicator of disunity and severe divisiveness. As a hypothetical legislator (on the majority side), this should be a signal to deescalate. Instead? All speed ahead is the traditional response. You can argue it's normal; and preferable to actual blades and bombs violence. I argue that if you have a group shoving a stick in the spokes of Government that hard, the violence is well under way.

klodolph 5y ago

I'm not sure it's so "broken". The consequences of breaking a rule are just that you have to... deal with the consequences of breaking that rule. To the extent that that rule has consequences, and the consequences are enforced. Like, if you stop showing up at your job because you disagree with the labor conditions, you get fired. But if everyone in the factory stops showing up at their job, it's suddenly called a "strike" and the apparatus for punishment doesn't work any more... maybe this time, the consequences for the same action are "you get a raise and better healthcare". The rules for legislative bodies generally allow legislators to take more and more extreme actions to influence which laws get passed. As legislators take more extreme actions, the consequences get correspondingly more severe. This seems like "functioning as intended" to me. The absentee legislators have skin in the game... it's not like they can freely walk away from the legislature whenever they disagree with a law. Just like a striking factory worker can freely walk away from their job at the factory and go on strike. These more extreme actions fizzle out, force the other side to reach a compromise, or backfire. The idea that people "should" just sit down and talk things out doesn't scan, IMO. These people are accountable to the people who elected them first, and the legislative body second.

lax4ever 5y ago

I also don't think the system is broken. Yes, absolutely they should be voting against it. That is their prerogative, even duty, as elected members of a representative republic. However, for every vote there are going to be people who agree and people who disagree and both sides are accountable to the people who voted them in. The system is not broken when everyone does their job, regardless of the yay/nay count on a vote. The system breaks when those elected refuse to do the job that they were elected to do.

salawat 5y ago
They are doing their job. You just aren't looking at the big picture enough. If they show up so the procedural quorum is met, then they haven't done anything to keep what they are against from happening. If anything, this should demonstrate that the winner takes all model of elections has driven us to a polarization where nuclear options are being deployed. This means packing either sides ball and going home is a better, more likely option than achieving any compromise. This is the danger of diametrically opposed political tmrhetoric. If the majority of legislators are heavily polarized rather than swingable centrists, nothing will ever get done.
- klodolph 5y ago
  Two things I disagree with... this isn't the "nuclear option", and I'm not sure that this is connected with modern polarization. The reason that these quorum rules are so old is because people have been evading quorum for decades or centuries. Just take Bob Packwood (D-OR) as an example... in February 1988, he was forcibly carried into the US Senate chamber by capitol police. Or look at Abraham Lincoln, who tried and failed to evade quorum in the Illinois senate in December 1840. The nuclear option, IMO, is civil war. Which has happened and continues to happen across the world, at great cost to life. Absentee legislators... IMO, just bureaucracy in action. I will accept an inefficient or wasteful bureaucracy any day, if the alternatives are worse--and there are many plausible worse alternatives.
  - salawat 5y ago
    I use nuclear option in the sense that in a functioning legislature, strategic denial of quorum should be an unneeded arcanity. We are not in those times. I'd actually be curious to research how frequent the act is. Intuitively, one would hope it only happens in exceptional circumstances; but it's definitely something that with increasing frequency, we should be taking as an indicator of disunity and severe divisiveness. As a hypothetical legislator (on the majority side), this should be a signal to deescalate. Instead? All speed ahead is the traditional response. You can argue it's normal; and preferable to actual blades and bombs violence. I argue that if you have a group shoving a stick in the spokes of Government that hard, the violence is well under way.