2 ms·

> 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 a

> 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?

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?