3 ms·

Hard disagree, I think time has proven that the filibuster (or some process like it) is necessary as a stabilizing effect on democracy. Making legislation easie

by Spivak 11mo ago

Hard disagree, I think time has proven that the filibuster (or some process like it) is necessary as a stabilizing effect on democracy. Making legislation easier to block than pass makes it so that small swings in representation, say 51-49 to 49-51 can't produce massive swings in policy. The minority party being able to, with effort, stop certain pieces of legislation they find abhorrent by raising the bar to it passing is a good thing. The Veto is also profoundly undemocratic in exactly the same direction and it's also a good thing.

runako 11mo ago
The Senate is already an antidemocratic brake/stabilizer. Adding a brake to it is stultifying. > so that small swings in representation, say 51-49 to 49-51 can't produce massive swings in policy Exactly, and this is bad. Voters should all know that every vote matters. The current setup creates the false impression that both parties would fundamentally steer the ship the same way ("uniparty"). The path to a government that is more responsive to the needs of citizens involves allowing winning parties to actually govern. I would argue that we want a more responsive, dynamic government that attempts to represent us. The filibuster is in direct direct opposition to all of that. The GOP won the last national elections. They should be allowed to end SNAP, ACA, EPA, Labor Dept, NSF, Dept. of Education, FDA, all science grants, Medicaid, put armed military checkpoints on every city block, end legal immigration, and zero out federal funding to any school that is closed on the federal MLK Jr holiday[1]. (And to the extent that those things are not legal now, they have the votes to make them legal.) And then in '26 and '28, voters should decide whether they agree with that vision for how the country should be run. The result will be a much more responsive, dynamic system where Congress cares more about what we voters think. 1 - taken loosely from the 2024 GOP party platform and administration statements from this year
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  > The result will be a much more responsive, dynamic system where Congress cares more about what we voters think. Or an overwhelming switch the other direction, just as chaotic and unpopular, continuing to swing back and forth every four years. Who knows, maybe the overreach of the current party in power (even though "won the last national elections" meaning less than 50% of the cast vote, but that's another discussion) will cause a swing the other direction so hard that the opposition party gains a supermajority in congress. Things will be more stable in that case, if not universally popular, because well-crafted legislation is a good bit harder to reverse than executive orders.
johnnyanmac 11mo ago
It hasn't done a good job stabilizing for decades in this case. The power of the people was stripped unilaterally and none of these mechanisms stopped it.
mullingitover 11mo ago
Not clear on what we’re disagreeing about: yes, anti democratic mechanisms have a stabilizing effect on democracy. They accomplish this by thwarting democracy. I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad, it is what it is, but these anti-democratic mechanisms are intentional.

by Spivak 11mo ago

runako 11mo ago

The Senate is already an antidemocratic brake/stabilizer. Adding a brake to it is stultifying. > so that small swings in representation, say 51-49 to 49-51 can't produce massive swings in policy Exactly, and this is bad. Voters should all know that every vote matters. The current setup creates the false impression that both parties would fundamentally steer the ship the same way ("uniparty"). The path to a government that is more responsive to the needs of citizens involves allowing winning parties to actually govern. I would argue that we want a more responsive, dynamic government that attempts to represent us. The filibuster is in direct direct opposition to all of that. The GOP won the last national elections. They should be allowed to end SNAP, ACA, EPA, Labor Dept, NSF, Dept. of Education, FDA, all science grants, Medicaid, put armed military checkpoints on every city block, end legal immigration, and zero out federal funding to any school that is closed on the federal MLK Jr holiday[1]. (And to the extent that those things are not legal now, they have the votes to make them legal.) And then in '26 and '28, voters should decide whether they agree with that vision for how the country should be run. The result will be a much more responsive, dynamic system where Congress cares more about what we voters think. 1 - taken loosely from the 2024 GOP party platform and administration statements from this year

rootusrootus 11mo ago
> The result will be a much more responsive, dynamic system where Congress cares more about what we voters think. Or an overwhelming switch the other direction, just as chaotic and unpopular, continuing to swing back and forth every four years. Who knows, maybe the overreach of the current party in power (even though "won the last national elections" meaning less than 50% of the cast vote, but that's another discussion) will cause a swing the other direction so hard that the opposition party gains a supermajority in congress. Things will be more stable in that case, if not universally popular, because well-crafted legislation is a good bit harder to reverse than executive orders.

johnnyanmac 11mo ago

It hasn't done a good job stabilizing for decades in this case. The power of the people was stripped unilaterally and none of these mechanisms stopped it.

mullingitover 11mo ago

Not clear on what we’re disagreeing about: yes, anti democratic mechanisms have a stabilizing effect on democracy. They accomplish this by thwarting democracy. I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad, it is what it is, but these anti-democratic mechanisms are intentional.