4 ms·

In various other countries, if you can't pass a budget, your governance is in question to the point that you face a new election. i.e., it is on you to negotiat

by prawn 1y ago

In various other countries, if you can't pass a budget, your governance is in question to the point that you face a new election. i.e., it is on you to negotiate more flexibly to avoid this.

sturadnidge 1y ago
How many of said countries require more than a simple majority to pass a budget though? To my knowledge the US is quite the exception in that it requires a _special_ majority for such things. A simple majority could be challenging if the government is formed via coalition, but if you have any examples where 1) a single party formed government and 2) a simple majority was the only requirement to pass a budget and 3) a budget failed to pass… then enlighten me by all means!
- timeon 1y ago
  Single party forming government is already questionable democracy. Edit: At least there is required more than simple majority for some things - as there needs to be compromise (consensus in society). But we see now the flaw that ruling party does not care about compromises.
- throwup238 1y ago
  Isn’t the super majority for getting over filibusters in the Senate? The catch is that it’s a Senate rule and the Senate sets is own rules via simple majority. There’s nothing really stopping a government with simple majority control across all branches from doing away with the filibuster and ramming the budget through except internal party politics.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > a Senate rule and the Senate sets is own rules via simple majority. Right, each house of the US legislature starts the session with a >50% vote to re-adopt a slowly mutating package of rules that it used last time and has carried forward for decades, defining how work is scheduled, what committees exist, how seniority is calculated, who gets the nice office with the window, etc. This leads to the "nuclear option" of a special >50% vote to remove the underlying rule which imposes the larger vote-margin for certain situations.
- codebje 1y ago
  Here in Australia the (single party) government of the day was dismissed in 1975 after failing to secure a supply bill. The government was dismissed by the Governor General, the Crown's representative in Australia, and the event sparked a bit of a ruckus. Google: The Whitlam Dismissal. There's lots of instances of our government requesting dissolution of the Houses following failure to secure votes, but in most cases they're for things other than operating expense bills, taken as proxies indicating the government does not have the confidence of the House to continue to act. Since failure to secure a bill is grounds for dissolving Parliament, it's not likely to be used for political grandstanding here.
  - sturadnidge 1y ago
    Always good to come across fellow Australians in here! I’d probably argue for an exception on that one, given the Whitlam government didn’t have a senate majority… but at the very least, I feel like a single case in the last 50 years is pretty supportive of my argument. The US government is on the verge of shutdown so often these days that I wonder how many people are desensitised to the situation!
    - Ekaros 1y ago
      How does failing to pass budget affect debt repayments? Could they simply end up defaulting sometime in future? That is not great outlook for a "reserve currency".
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - averageRoyalty 1y ago
    I mean it happened earlier this year in Tasmania, and it was absolutely for grandstanding purposes, given they'd had an election less than a year before.
    - sturadnidge 1y ago
- dwd 1y ago
  The Australian Government can be dissolved if any bill fails to pass on second introduction, with some caveats. In most cases the executive (formed by the holder of the lower house majority) didn't also hold a simple majority in the Senate, or had defections or independent/minor party objections over the bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
danaris 1y ago
However, while you're absolutely right about the optics, that's fundamentally not how the US government operates. We are not a parliamentary system, and elections happen on a fixed schedule. Unless Congresspeople die or resign, this is the Congress we are stuck with until the midterm elections late next year.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  We really do need some mechanism from the people itself to force a re-election. It can be as high as 75% to publicly convict, but it's clear that sometimes the people themselves need to speak now and not wait 2-6 years to fix bad faith actors. We see how much even 1 year of incompetence can do.
- prawn 1y ago
  In theory, shouldn't the governing party adjust their position until they get the votes required?
  - danaris 1y ago
    That only works when the governing party cares about governing. The Republican Party has made it painfully clear over the past decade that they care more about winning than governing. The initial stages of this were when they vowed not to let any of Obama's priorities pass, to "make him a one-term president" (in their own words). They have to win, and they have to punish the loser.

by prawn 1y ago

In various other countries, if you can't pass a budget, your governance is in question to the point that you face a new election. i.e., it is on you to negotiate more flexibly to avoid this.

sturadnidge 1y ago

How many of said countries require more than a simple majority to pass a budget though? To my knowledge the US is quite the exception in that it requires a _special_ majority for such things. A simple majority could be challenging if the government is formed via coalition, but if you have any examples where 1) a single party formed government and 2) a simple majority was the only requirement to pass a budget and 3) a budget failed to pass… then enlighten me by all means!

timeon 1y ago
Single party forming government is already questionable democracy. Edit: At least there is required more than simple majority for some things - as there needs to be compromise (consensus in society). But we see now the flaw that ruling party does not care about compromises.
throwup238 1y ago
Isn’t the super majority for getting over filibusters in the Senate? The catch is that it’s a Senate rule and the Senate sets is own rules via simple majority. There’s nothing really stopping a government with simple majority control across all branches from doing away with the filibuster and ramming the budget through except internal party politics.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > a Senate rule and the Senate sets is own rules via simple majority. Right, each house of the US legislature starts the session with a >50% vote to re-adopt a slowly mutating package of rules that it used last time and has carried forward for decades, defining how work is scheduled, what committees exist, how seniority is calculated, who gets the nice office with the window, etc. This leads to the "nuclear option" of a special >50% vote to remove the underlying rule which imposes the larger vote-margin for certain situations.
codebje 1y ago
Here in Australia the (single party) government of the day was dismissed in 1975 after failing to secure a supply bill. The government was dismissed by the Governor General, the Crown's representative in Australia, and the event sparked a bit of a ruckus. Google: The Whitlam Dismissal. There's lots of instances of our government requesting dissolution of the Houses following failure to secure votes, but in most cases they're for things other than operating expense bills, taken as proxies indicating the government does not have the confidence of the House to continue to act. Since failure to secure a bill is grounds for dissolving Parliament, it's not likely to be used for political grandstanding here.
- sturadnidge 1y ago
  Always good to come across fellow Australians in here! I’d probably argue for an exception on that one, given the Whitlam government didn’t have a senate majority… but at the very least, I feel like a single case in the last 50 years is pretty supportive of my argument. The US government is on the verge of shutdown so often these days that I wonder how many people are desensitised to the situation!
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    How does failing to pass budget affect debt repayments? Could they simply end up defaulting sometime in future? That is not great outlook for a "reserve currency".
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- averageRoyalty 1y ago
  I mean it happened earlier this year in Tasmania, and it was absolutely for grandstanding purposes, given they'd had an election less than a year before.
  - sturadnidge 1y ago
dwd 1y ago
The Australian Government can be dissolved if any bill fails to pass on second introduction, with some caveats. In most cases the executive (formed by the holder of the lower house majority) didn't also hold a simple majority in the Senate, or had defections or independent/minor party objections over the bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_dissolution
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

danaris 1y ago

However, while you're absolutely right about the optics, that's fundamentally not how the US government operates. We are not a parliamentary system, and elections happen on a fixed schedule. Unless Congresspeople die or resign, this is the Congress we are stuck with until the midterm elections late next year.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
We really do need some mechanism from the people itself to force a re-election. It can be as high as 75% to publicly convict, but it's clear that sometimes the people themselves need to speak now and not wait 2-6 years to fix bad faith actors. We see how much even 1 year of incompetence can do.
prawn 1y ago
In theory, shouldn't the governing party adjust their position until they get the votes required?
- danaris 1y ago
  That only works when the governing party cares about governing. The Republican Party has made it painfully clear over the past decade that they care more about winning than governing. The initial stages of this were when they vowed not to let any of Obama's priorities pass, to "make him a one-term president" (in their own words). They have to win, and they have to punish the loser.