4 ms·

The US actually has an additional issue on top of FPTP which as far as I know is unique among (supposed) democracies: a bicameral legislature where one of the h

The US actually has an additional issue on top of FPTP which as far as I know is unique among (supposed) democracies: a bicameral legislature where one of the houses requires a 60% supermajority to pass anything. This is such an incredibly fundamental part of the US political system that it amazes me that it isn't more widely talked about. It means the US is effectively not able to pass any laws that are even mildly controversial, because it's the only (supposedly) democratic political system in the world where the opposition party has to consent to any law. This effectively disenfranchises everyone, and is the root cause for the comically over-powerful judiciary and executive (because the legislature is structurally incapable of properly doing its job, the other state organs have to take its place lest the country be completely ungovernable). For some reason people really don't talk about this issue enough, and continue acting as though the legislature operates as it does in normal democracies, and then getting confused by its behavior. For example, lots of people ask "why doesn't the US ban guns" or "why doesn't the US legalize" abortion, and often just chalk this up to some moral failing of American culture and ideology, rather than recognizing the root cause of the issue: the US can't pass laws, at all, even broadly popular ones! Given this issue, I feel like the US is best considered a hybrid regime like Hong Kong than an actual democracy. Although at least in Hong Kong, someone is in charge...

henryfjordan 4y ago
Worth noting that this is the filibuster rule and it can be changed/eliminated with a 50% vote. We're only deadlocked by choice.
krallja 4y ago
There is no legal requirement for a 60% supermajority to pass anything in the Senate; it’s just a Senate rule. The filibuster has been modified before, and could be modified at any point in the future. I personally am a fan of leaving it, but you HAVE TO TALK. If you stop talking, you yield. If you want to grind up the gears of Congress, you have to actually do something.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  > I personally am a fan of leaving it Why?
  - krallja 4y ago
    It’s a check on populism. Also, changing the rule slowly seems more likely to have good outcomes than removing the rule altogether.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      The US is already way overburdened with "checks on populism" relative to other democracies: the bicameral legislature, the state/federal power sharing, the strong, independent judiciary interpreting a written constitution...
mywittyname 4y ago
The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it. The House, for all it's flaws in being capped so low, at least has the advantage of being more representative of the population, having a clearer majority, and being large enough to support factions within the parties.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  I agree with you: that's another extremely serious flaw in the US political system that I didn't even mention because I spent so much space ranting about the filibuster.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  If that isn't wanted, why even bother with having separate states in first place? Just place everything directly under federal government. You could even get rid of all other levels.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    The 10th amendment gives states power to regulate tons of things. Different states can have different laws without the senate.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Good question. It’s not clear why the US being a federation is important or valuable — it seems to be true for purely legacy reasons: that the states were already pseudo-independent colonies prior to 1776.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    I think it is an important question: what are states for. I don't mean the historical sequence of circumstances that led us to have the system we do, but why we might or might not want them. Why not just designated administrative districts of a federal government. One thing that Trump's presidency has taught me however, is that, despite the shenangigans of some of the election apparatus in individual states, it was much much harder for Trump to subvert the election process than it would have been had everyone worked for him.
BurningFrog 4y ago
This is also why we're drifting towards an "Imperial Presidency", where the president, as the only power center that can come to a decision, unilaterally dictates more and more of US policy.

henryfjordan 4y ago

Worth noting that this is the filibuster rule and it can be changed/eliminated with a 50% vote. We're only deadlocked by choice.

krallja 4y ago

There is no legal requirement for a 60% supermajority to pass anything in the Senate; it’s just a Senate rule. The filibuster has been modified before, and could be modified at any point in the future. I personally am a fan of leaving it, but you HAVE TO TALK. If you stop talking, you yield. If you want to grind up the gears of Congress, you have to actually do something.

School-Cotton 4y ago
> I personally am a fan of leaving it Why?
- krallja 4y ago
  It’s a check on populism. Also, changing the rule slowly seems more likely to have good outcomes than removing the rule altogether.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    The US is already way overburdened with "checks on populism" relative to other democracies: the bicameral legislature, the state/federal power sharing, the strong, independent judiciary interpreting a written constitution...

mywittyname 4y ago

The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it. The House, for all it's flaws in being capped so low, at least has the advantage of being more representative of the population, having a clearer majority, and being large enough to support factions within the parties.

School-Cotton 4y ago
I agree with you: that's another extremely serious flaw in the US political system that I didn't even mention because I spent so much space ranting about the filibuster.
Ekaros 4y ago
If that isn't wanted, why even bother with having separate states in first place? Just place everything directly under federal government. You could even get rid of all other levels.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  The 10th amendment gives states power to regulate tons of things. Different states can have different laws without the senate.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Good question. It’s not clear why the US being a federation is important or valuable — it seems to be true for purely legacy reasons: that the states were already pseudo-independent colonies prior to 1776.
- jonnycomputer 4y ago
  I think it is an important question: what are states for. I don't mean the historical sequence of circumstances that led us to have the system we do, but why we might or might not want them. Why not just designated administrative districts of a federal government. One thing that Trump's presidency has taught me however, is that, despite the shenangigans of some of the election apparatus in individual states, it was much much harder for Trump to subvert the election process than it would have been had everyone worked for him.

BurningFrog 4y ago

This is also why we're drifting towards an "Imperial Presidency", where the president, as the only power center that can come to a decision, unilaterally dictates more and more of US policy.