4 ms·

The article really makes a huge stretch, the shutdowns didn't start until decades after the introduction of HVAC. But on that note: It would be ideal to add a

The article really makes a huge stretch, the shutdowns didn't start until decades after the introduction of HVAC. But on that note: It would be ideal to add a simple amendment to the constitution which stipulates that in the event of a federal government shutdown, every member of Congress is ineligible for re-election, along with the president, and they all forfeit all federal pensions and other lifetime benefits. It wouldn't guarantee that there wouldn't ever be a shutdown again, but it would make it a truly nuclear option that no one would take lightly. These shutdowns affect millions of people and cost billions of dollars, and they're pretty much entirely political theater wrought by people who put partisanship over basic duties.

unethical_ban 3y ago
It would guarantee it. Think about how self interested they are. Yeah, innovators dilemma, etc.
akira2501 3y ago
So I just engineer a shutdown and get 535+ _elected_ people fired? This is to be to the voters benefit? I'd honestly go the other way, in a sense. If you can't get at least 50% voter turnout in your district, the election is forfeit, and we hold another one in two weeks. These people aren't invested because they mostly don't need to be in any meaningful way. I agree though, making them hot for a few weeks is unlikely to change much. Also, comparing how people spent their time before urban expansion and the massive increase in farm labor efficiency is absurd. 1908 America hardly looked like it does now.
- rascul 3y ago
  > If you can't get at least 50% voter turnout in your district, the election is forfeit, and we hold another one in two weeks. What if you don't get 50% in two weeks? Or ever?
  - akira2501 3y ago
    I imagine it would create more opportunities for independents and other types of candidates to run. Instead of having a false choice that nobody really wants, it continually forces the issue until a real choice is available, and denies any false mandate to anyone elected without the real will of the people being polled. It also changes the cost dynamics of running races to the point where I hope it would reduce cynical political maneuvers drastically. They would cease paying off, and chasing people away from the polls would be detrimental to everyone. There's the other side, as well. Is it the right of people to _not_ have any representation currently? I think if your district only gets 18% turnout, then the voters are essentially telling you just that.. we'd rather have _no one_ over what's presented here.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  > So I just engineer a shutdown and get 535+ _elected_ people fired? This is to be to the voters benefit? It would take at least half of those congresspeople acting in concert with the president to terminate their political futures and pensions in order to make that happen. What social engineering do you believe you could do to accomplish this? (The president would likely be the weak spot in this plan, as there's a chance they wouldn't be up for re-election anyway, which was why I added the "other lifetime benefits" clause. I think all ex-presidents would be highly motivated to keep their lifetime secret service protection.)
  - akira2501 3y ago
    It doesn't take a positive vote to shutdown the government. It merely takes the lack of one. This, I believe, is the flaw.
    - mullingitover 3y ago
      Someone actively prevents the vote from taking place. In the current House of Representatives, this would be Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, who is beholden to a tiny faction of right-wingers who are able to use parliamentary chicanery to strip him of his speakership if he doesn't accommodate them. His primary motivation isn't serving the public interest, but keeping his speakership, so we have a tyranny of the minority who are currently on track to engineer the shutdown. Now, if there was a mechanism in place so McCarthy had to choose between merely losing his speakership versus losing his entire political career, and the radical faction were facing the same risk, this wouldn't be a tough call for him or anyone else in the building. The prospect of everyone in congress, together, being erased from the political map would do wonders for encouraging bipartisanship. They would collectively crawl a mile naked through briar patches to hold that vote.
      - _ea1k 3y ago
        Wouldn't that just give people in safe districts an incentive to trigger shutdowns? Possibly even leading to more polarization by default?
junofan 3y ago
Doesn’t seem fair for the voters, no? Why should my representatives be ineligible to serve because others couldn’t agree?
- mullingitover 3y ago
  Governing in a democracy is about compromise, and the shutdowns are a result of misaligned incentives leading to a failure to compromise. In a shutdown, everyone in the legislative and executive branch is essentially committing a mass act of "they can't arrest us all!" malfeasance in office, there are no bystanders.
jtriangle 3y ago
Government shutdowns aren't so much about funding as they are creating a situation where banks can acquire money from the government. Government issues bonds at 4-7% that mature in 1-7 days and sells them to a select group of banks who make out like robbers every time it happens. So on one hand, understanding that makes it all far simpler, but on the other, it's horrendously corrupt.

unethical_ban 3y ago

It would guarantee it. Think about how self interested they are. Yeah, innovators dilemma, etc.

akira2501 3y ago

So I just engineer a shutdown and get 535+ _elected_ people fired? This is to be to the voters benefit? I'd honestly go the other way, in a sense. If you can't get at least 50% voter turnout in your district, the election is forfeit, and we hold another one in two weeks. These people aren't invested because they mostly don't need to be in any meaningful way. I agree though, making them hot for a few weeks is unlikely to change much. Also, comparing how people spent their time before urban expansion and the massive increase in farm labor efficiency is absurd. 1908 America hardly looked like it does now.

rascul 3y ago
> If you can't get at least 50% voter turnout in your district, the election is forfeit, and we hold another one in two weeks. What if you don't get 50% in two weeks? Or ever?
- akira2501 3y ago
  I imagine it would create more opportunities for independents and other types of candidates to run. Instead of having a false choice that nobody really wants, it continually forces the issue until a real choice is available, and denies any false mandate to anyone elected without the real will of the people being polled. It also changes the cost dynamics of running races to the point where I hope it would reduce cynical political maneuvers drastically. They would cease paying off, and chasing people away from the polls would be detrimental to everyone. There's the other side, as well. Is it the right of people to _not_ have any representation currently? I think if your district only gets 18% turnout, then the voters are essentially telling you just that.. we'd rather have _no one_ over what's presented here.
mullingitover 3y ago
> So I just engineer a shutdown and get 535+ _elected_ people fired? This is to be to the voters benefit? It would take at least half of those congresspeople acting in concert with the president to terminate their political futures and pensions in order to make that happen. What social engineering do you believe you could do to accomplish this? (The president would likely be the weak spot in this plan, as there's a chance they wouldn't be up for re-election anyway, which was why I added the "other lifetime benefits" clause. I think all ex-presidents would be highly motivated to keep their lifetime secret service protection.)
- akira2501 3y ago
  It doesn't take a positive vote to shutdown the government. It merely takes the lack of one. This, I believe, is the flaw.
  - mullingitover 3y ago
    Someone actively prevents the vote from taking place. In the current House of Representatives, this would be Kevin McCarthy, Speaker of the House, who is beholden to a tiny faction of right-wingers who are able to use parliamentary chicanery to strip him of his speakership if he doesn't accommodate them. His primary motivation isn't serving the public interest, but keeping his speakership, so we have a tyranny of the minority who are currently on track to engineer the shutdown. Now, if there was a mechanism in place so McCarthy had to choose between merely losing his speakership versus losing his entire political career, and the radical faction were facing the same risk, this wouldn't be a tough call for him or anyone else in the building. The prospect of everyone in congress, together, being erased from the political map would do wonders for encouraging bipartisanship. They would collectively crawl a mile naked through briar patches to hold that vote.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      Wouldn't that just give people in safe districts an incentive to trigger shutdowns? Possibly even leading to more polarization by default?

junofan 3y ago

Doesn’t seem fair for the voters, no? Why should my representatives be ineligible to serve because others couldn’t agree?

mullingitover 3y ago
Governing in a democracy is about compromise, and the shutdowns are a result of misaligned incentives leading to a failure to compromise. In a shutdown, everyone in the legislative and executive branch is essentially committing a mass act of "they can't arrest us all!" malfeasance in office, there are no bystanders.

jtriangle 3y ago

Government shutdowns aren't so much about funding as they are creating a situation where banks can acquire money from the government. Government issues bonds at 4-7% that mature in 1-7 days and sells them to a select group of banks who make out like robbers every time it happens. So on one hand, understanding that makes it all far simpler, but on the other, it's horrendously corrupt.