Our system is broken, but can it be fixed?

[candycorn]

I’m the one here. I have no idea where the fuck you and your fellow drones are.

Also, I don’t care.

Election deniers...those who think their opponents are pedophiles, hyper aggressive, perpetually angry white folks who are upset when they see someone of a different color.

Essentially the folks you hang around with.

 

[mudwhistle]

What? Sky falling much?

Mkay

Yeah...I remember when they got same-sex marriage they swore on a stack of Korans that they'd never try to push Transgenderism or Pedophilia down our throats.....AND NOW THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING!!!

So do everyone a favor and STFU!!!

 

[Mac-7]

It would start with a commitment to the idea, to recognize that forcing policies, on everyone, that half the country hates, is stupid. The idea behind consensus isn't that everyone agrees. And it isn't majority rule. It means that no one has paramount objections to the policy proposed. The root word of consensus is consent, and it means everyone consents to the decision, even if they don't necessarily agree with it.

But if a significant portion of the citizenry does have a paramount objection, a simple majority isn't good enough. We can't do that policy. The idea is to avoid passing laws that leave one side angry, resentful and spoiling for revenge.

The mechanics of consensus vary, there are many different systems, but they all focus on the above as the goal. A simplistic move in that direction would be to require a two-thirds majority vote on all national legislation. People will insist that Congress would completely stall, unable to do anything. I don't believe that. Faced with the two-thirds requirement, they would find enough common ground to get the necessary work of government done. They might not come together on one side's favorite social engineering scheme, but that's sort of the point. Moreover, this requirement would give a real leg up to candidates who were able to "play well with others". The tone and tenor of Congress would change.

Its not a bad idea but you consensus just to get it off the ground

Good luck with that

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Pixels on a screen, bruh.

.


That's you all over.

Ones and zeros.................

and orange stained tighty-whiteys.

Thanks for your thought provoking post.



.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You’re entitled to believe that. I don’t.

Yes, I know how you feel about your beloved party.

 

[BackAgain]

Election deniers...those who think their opponents are pedophiles, hyper aggressive, perpetually angry white folks who are upset when they see someone of a different color.

Essentially the folks you hang around with.

Again, you must be hanging out with Penelplop too much. You’re making even less sense today than you usually make —- which ain’t much.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, I know how you feel about your beloved party.

Zzzz

 

[dblack]

Its not a bad idea but you consensus just to get it off the ground

Good luck with that

Exactly. The first step is to get ourselves out of the two-party trap.

 

[task0778]

The mechanics of consensus vary, there are many different systems, but they all focus on the above as the goal. A simplistic move in that direction would be to require a two-thirds majority vote on all national legislation. People will insist that Congress would completely stall, unable to do anything. I don't believe that. Faced with the two-thirds requirement, they would find enough common ground to get the necessary work of government done. They might not come together on one side's favorite social engineering scheme, but that's sort of the point. Moreover, this requirement would give a real leg up to candidates who were able to "play well with others". The tone and tenor of Congress would change.

The Senate used to require a 2/3 requirement to pass legislation, which they changed to 60% cuz they couldn't get anything done and now they can't even with 60% unless one party has a super majority. There has been a few cases of bipartisanship where stuff got passed, but a 2/3 vote would make that harder, wouldn't it? The problem IMHO is that in too many places we don't elect moderates like we used to. We've got a handful of swing states but the majority of states are already locked up for one party or the other and until that changes we'll see a lot gridlock. It will be interesting to see how the current Congress deals with the debt ceiling, maybe we'll get some insight into how things are going to be at least in the near future.

I hate to be a catastrophist (is that a word?), but it's hard to see any significant change until disaster strikes, probably economic disaster. For some time we'll see the obligatory finger-pointing and blame game, but sooner or later we'll run out of road to can the can down. MY fear is that instead of becoming more moderate and compromising we'll instead go to a one-party rule, probably the democrats. And when that happens the entire gov't structure will change, and IMHO not for the better. A one-party gov't does not lend itself to the concept of freedom and equality, but rather the road to a totalitarian state.

 

[Mac-7]

Exactly. The first step is to get ourselves out of the two-party trap.

We did that with the election of trump in 2016 who was not a true republican

But libs went crazy and elected biden in 2020 for a return to business as usual

 

[BackAgain]

The Senate used to require a 2/3 requirement to pass legislation, which they changed to 60% cuz they couldn't get anything done and now they can't even with 60% unless one party has a super majority. There has been a few cases of bipartisanship where stuff got passed, but a 2/3 vote would make that harder, wouldn't it? The problem IMHO is that in too many places we don't elect moderates like we used to. We've got a handful of swing states but the majority of states are already locked up for one party or the other and until that changes we'll see a lot gridlock. It will be interesting to see how the current Congress deals with the debt ceiling, maybe we'll get some insight into how things are going to be at least in the near future.

I hate to be a catastrophist (is that a word?), but it's hard to see any significant change until disaster strikes, probably economic disaster. For some time we'll see the obligatory finger-pointing and blame game, but sooner or later we'll run out of road to can the can down. MY fear is that instead of becoming more moderate and compromising we'll instead go to a one-party rule, probably the democrats. And when that happens the entire gov't structure will change, and IMHO not for the better. A one-party gov't does not lend itself to the concept of freedom and equality, but rather the road to a totalitarian state.

They never had a super majority requirement to pass legislation. What they did have amounted to the same thing whenever there was a filibuster.

Since a filibuster isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution, there is no requirement that it exist. But it used to be a tool to guard against any overt zealotry in proposed laws.

 

[dblack]

We did that with the election of trump in 2016 who was not a true republican

But libs went crazy and elected biden in 2020 for a return to business as usual

Exactly. Trump was a brief middle finger to business as usual, but he didn't change anything substantive. He failed to build consensus - in fact he seemed to revel in the opposite - so nothing changed.

We'll need to change the way we vote. The good new is, it's happening. Grass roots efforts are underway across the country to adopt voting systems that don't prop up the two party nonsense, voting systems that better represent everyone, and not just the partisans. The question is, is it too little, too late? We'll see I guess.

 

[Mac-7]

He failed to build consensus

The nation had its chance to unite but libs refused to do so

 

[dblack]

The nation had its chance to unite but libs refused to do so

LOL - ok.

 

[Mac-7]

LOL - ok.

Its true

Trump was not a conventional republican steeped in inside washingtion politics

So he was rejected by the republican and democrat parties

All he had going for him was the grassroots

And if the lib grassroots had been tilling to bury the hatchet maybe some compromise and progress would have been possible

 

[dblack]

Its true

It's silly.

And if the lib grassroots had been tilling to bury the hatchet maybe some compromise and progress would have been possible

Are you really pretending that Trump sought consensus?

 

[Mac-7]

It's silly.

Are you really pretending that Trump sought consensus?

The washington swamp rats were opposed to everything he stood for

Consensus with the old bulls in congress would have been very difficult

But grassroots democrats could have voted their business-as-usual obstructionists out of office

 

[dblack]

The washington swamp rats were opposed to everything he stood for

Consensus with the old bulls in congress would have been very difficult

But grassroots democrats could have voted their business-as-usual obstructionists out of office

Well, I can't take you seriously if you ARE pretending Trump sought consensus. He consistently did the opposite. It was his calling card.

 

[Mac-7]

Well, I can't take you seriously if you ARE pretending Trump sought consensus. He consistently did the opposite. It was his calling card.

You mean trump did not accept illegal aliens

Its true

He wanted to build a wall and keep out the 5-10 million illegals that have entered the US since 2020

But I believe many libs can see the value of that also

 

[d0gbreath]

You’re not quite on the same page, are you?

That's what you claimed on page two.