COOnstitutional Convention

[El Guapo]

So as I mentioned in the midterms thread, I'm pretty pessimistic about the functioning of America's democratic institutions going forward - I think there are just too make choke points on legislation that, given the modern partisan environment, make it increasingly difficult to pass any significant (even bipartisan) legislation except in rare circumstances. That made me think about how I would reform America's political institutions were I given a magic wand to that effect.

That in turn made me think it would be interesting to hash out how an OO constitutional convention would go. Obviously none of these changes are realistic given the barriers to reforming the constitution, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

[El Guapo]

With that said, here's the Guapo plan:

(1) Congress becomes a unicameral legislature.

(2) There are currently 535 representatives + senators, which amounts to one for every (roughly) 590,000 people. Districts for Congressional members would be determined by some type of formula - something like, you start at a central point in the country and add city blocks to the district in something like a spiral until you hit ~ 590,000 people, then you stop and start the next district. That formula would need to be hashed out, but the goal would be to wind up with contiguous districts (and would be set without regard to state lines). The districts would be redrawn by the same formula roughly every 10 years, and could not be altered by legislators (maybe the formula could be altered by a 2/3rds majority of Congress or something).

(3) Congress members would be elected to four year terms, same as the President.

(4) No filibusters - straight majority vote on everything (as a possible point of compromise I could agree to allow filibusters for a couple defined things). I suppose going unicameral impeachment would have to be a 2/3rds vote by Congress (as opposed to the current majority House vote and 2/3rds senate vote).

(5) President would be mostly unchanged, except that the electoral college would be abolished in favor of a straight majority vote. President would still be term-limited as now.

Otherwise things would be mostly the same - same bill of rights and other amendments as now. Of course I'd make other tweaks, but these are the key structural changes I'd make.

[Moliere]

Senate goes back to being selected by State Legislatures.
Remove the Post Office from the Constitution.
Limit Presidential Executive Orders.

[El Guapo]

The post office, huh? That's awfully specific to be #2 on your list.

[Jeff V]

The job description of "politician" should be abolished. We'd be better off with a panel of HR professionals who would hire congressmen, the president, etc. based on qualifications and other factors, such as consensus and team building. Instead if electing corruptible people, we vote for issues that are in turn worked out by the branches of government. Failure to come to a consensus in a timely manner could result in a ballot initiative to replace ineffective government leaders (the HR panel would do the firing and hiring). For checks and balances, a separate committee would oversee ethics, both in government officials and the committee that appoints them. Corruption due to special interests/lobbyists/etc. would be grounds for dismissal, fines, even imprisonment.

This would effectively reign in the extremists on both sides of the spectrum -- something the Constitution attempts to handle via the electoral college. The electoral college was meant to keep a local extremist from gaining power thanks to a zealous power base; however, it did not adequately foresee the type of obstructionism that would arise from these nutjobs gaining power in their parties national committee.

Our current system at best works only on a very local level (and in big cities, not even that). It takes too much money to get elected to a position of any real power, and nearly always that money has strings attached.

[stessier]

Can I just note that this is a pretty pessimistic outlook for someone who (I believe) said they were getting a government job.

[NickAragua]

Unfortunately, none of that really addresses the underlying general tendency towards corruption due to acquisition of power ("power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"). The current procedures and systems would work just fine if a majority of congresscritters weren't in somebody's pocket in some way or other. Yes, there are laws against direct bribery, but that just means people have to get more creative.

So, my "simple" reform plan would eliminate all sources of funding for election campaigns other than a fixed federal/state/city fund allocated evenly to candidates who can get together some number of signatures or whatever (from dead people if they must).

That leaves "independent" third parties buying air time on TV and other mass media. As I recall, before the "Citizens United" ruling, there was a hard cap on political spending by for-profit organizations. Well, take it even further. Prohibit all political spending by all entities, individual or corporate, profit or non, specifically on mass media (TV, internet, radio, etc). Or, cap it at some tiny amount like $100 with a 20 year prison term for going over.

Of course, this will have to wait until the current supreme court dies off.

[El Guapo]

Can I just note that this is a pretty pessimistic outlook for someone who (I believe) said they were getting a government job.

In the executive branch! The executive branch is still functioning reasonably well, it's the legislative process that's getting all gummed up. Of course, we'll see what happens the next time that an SEC commissioner leaves office while the President and Senate are of opposing parties.

[El Guapo]

Of course, this will have to wait until the current supreme court dies off.

Not if we're having a constitutional convention.

[El Guapo]

With that said, here's the Guapo plan:

(1) Congress becomes a unicameral legislature.

(2) There are currently 535 representatives + senators, which amounts to one for every (roughly) 590,000 people. Districts for Congressional members would be determined by some type of formula - something like, you start at a central point in the country and add city blocks to the district in something like a spiral until you hit ~ 590,000 people, then you stop and start the next district. That formula would need to be hashed out, but the goal would be to wind up with contiguous districts (and would be set without regard to state lines). The districts would be redrawn by the same formula roughly every 10 years, and could not be altered by legislators (maybe the formula could be altered by a 2/3rds majority of Congress or something).

(3) Congress members would be elected to four year terms, same as the President.

(4) No filibusters - straight majority vote on everything (as a possible point of compromise I could agree to allow filibusters for a couple defined things). I suppose going unicameral impeachment would have to be a 2/3rds vote by Congress (as opposed to the current majority House vote and 2/3rds senate vote).

(5) President would be mostly unchanged, except that the electoral college would be abolished in favor of a straight majority vote. President would still be term-limited as now.

Otherwise things would be mostly the same - same bill of rights and other amendments as now. Of course I'd make other tweaks, but these are the key structural changes I'd make.

But speaking of the Supreme Court, I forgot one key thing! Supreme Court justices would have a set term - say, 15 years, without possibility of re-appointment (though a justice could be appointed to a lower court after their Supreme Court term was over).

[stessier]

But speaking of the Supreme Court, I forgot one key thing! Supreme Court justices would have a set term - say, 15 years, without possibility of re-appointment (though a justice could be appointed to a lower court after their Supreme Court term was over).

I think the term needs to be longer. Maybe 25 years. At 15 years I could see people waiting them out.

[stessier]

For your Point 3, I'm fine with 4 year terms, but think they should be offset from the President's term. I also think they should be term limited at 2 rather than 1. (Could be talked into 3 as well).

[El Guapo]

For your Point 3, I'm fine with 4 year terms, but think they should be offset from the President's term. I also think they should be term limited at 2 rather than 1. (Could be talked into 3 as well).

That's fine with me. I guess I favor coterminous terms so that we're not constantly in an election / fundraising cycle, and so that we wind up with basically the same electorate each time (as opposed to a differing midterm electorate based on who votes in presidential vs. midterm elections). But I don't feel too strongly on that.

As for Supreme Court terms I could go longer than 15, but 25 seems too long. I could be talked into a 12 year term with the possibility of being reappointed once (so max 24).

[stessier]

For your Point 3, I'm fine with 4 year terms, but think they should be offset from the President's term. I also think they should be term limited at 2 rather than 1. (Could be talked into 3 as well).

That's fine with me. I guess I favor coterminous terms so that we're not constantly in an election / fundraising cycle, and so that we wind up with basically the same electorate each time (as opposed to a differing midterm electorate based on who votes in presidential vs. midterm elections). But I don't feel too strongly on that.

I fear a charismatic movement getting a bad group in office all at once. By splitting it up, they can act as a check on each other. Although that presumes the electorate can smarten up in 2 short years, but better than nothing.

As for Supreme Court terms I could go longer than 15, but 25 seems too long. I could be talked into a 12 year term with the possibility of being reappointed once (so max 24).

That could be interesting. It would guarantee a different president was nominating them. Worth further discussion.

So is there any fear of a unicameral body having even more trouble getting things done? Is there some mechanism we could include so smaller parties could form coalitions to get the speaker the job? I mean, I guess that could happen now, but would it be even more likely in a single body situation?

I really like the lack of filibuster. How about a mechanism to force something to get a vote?

[El Guapo]

[

So is there any fear of a unicameral body having even more trouble getting things done? Is there some mechanism we could include so smaller parties could form coalitions to get the speaker the job? I mean, I guess that could happen now, but would it be even more likely in a single body situation?

I really like the lack of filibuster. How about a mechanism to force something to get a vote?

It's hard to see how the unicameral Congress would be worse. Importantly by removing gerrymandering, you would have fewer hyper-partisan districts and (hopefully) more competitive races, which would improve the need to respond to the electorate (and get stuff done). Also by going unicameral it would improve accountability by having fewer places to blame for stuff not getting done.

I don't think a mechanism to force a vote is a good idea. Some policy prioritization has to be done, because there are essentially unlimited policy ideas (big and small) and only so much can get done in a given session. Also a compulsory vote could be abused to gum up Congress (i.e. Ted Cruz could file motions for compulsory votes on (say) 100,000 bills, which would compel Congress to vote on so many things that it doesn't have time to legislate on matters of substance).

[LawBeefaroni]

Repeal the Twenty-first Amendment. Let's make the 2020s like the 1920s!


I love the idea of the unicameral legislature but it would change the job of Career Politician in the US way too much for any career politician to accept it.

[Apollo]

1. Get rid of political parties.
2. All campaigns funded by public money and individual contributors (Up to $500). No other donations by institutions of any sort.
3. Get rid of electoral college.
4. All Congressional terms go to 4 years to prevent excessive campaigning. Senate and President's terms remain the same.
5. No filibuster rules. All votes decided by simple majority except for special votes like constitutional amendments.
6. No votes on debt ceiling. Congress must either properly fund a program or get rid of it altogether.
7. EVERY BILL PASSED must be detailed and explained in yearly mailings to all constituents.

That's all I can come up with off the top of my head. And thanks to those whose ideas I copied...I couldn't have done it without you.

[Zarathud]

The system is less of a problem than modern financial incentives and gerrymandering. The modern information tools/analytics let politicians optimize districts for likely voters and races are no longer competitive between parties. Deep pockets interest groups pick their politicians -- and the actions of extremists are easier to predict.

Changing the terms for judges doesn't fix those problems. The federal judges are at least interested in a coherent system of law.

[El Guapo]

You can't get rid of political parties. That is, any ban on political parties would amount to a ban on people getting together and trying to effect political change (which would be a tad anti-democratic).

[El Guapo]

The system is less of a problem than modern financial incentives and gerrymandering. The modern information tools/analytics let politicians optimize districts for likely voters and races are no longer competitive between parties. Deep pockets interest groups pick their politicians -- and the actions of extremists are easier to predict.

Changing the terms for judges doesn't fix those problems. The federal judges are at least interested in a coherent system of law.

Sure, that's not a response to our dysfunctional legislative process, it's just another constitutional change that I would enact if given the power.

[Apollo]

You can't get rid of political parties. That is, any ban on political parties would amount to a ban on people getting together and trying to effect political change (which would be a tad anti-democratic).

People can still get together and support a candidate. Political parties allow too many folks to vote party lines without knowing what they are actually voting for. Having to choose between individuals would require voters to actually know what they are voting for.

And BTW, our system is full of rules that seem to be anti-democratic (like the electoral college), so why are you picking on my idea? I assure you that my magic wand is at least as big as yours...

[Rip]

You guys are making it too complicated.

All we need is a simple change. Right now you can vote once you reach 18 years of age, which is good but what we need is to give everyone another vote each 18 years. So at 36 you get 2 votes. At 54 3 votes and so on. Then all of our problems would be solved.

[El Guapo]

You can't get rid of political parties. That is, any ban on political parties would amount to a ban on people getting together and trying to effect political change (which would be a tad anti-democratic).

People can still get together and support a candidate. Political parties allow too many folks to vote party lines without knowing what they are actually voting for. Having to choose between individuals would require voters to actually know what they are voting for.

And BTW, our system is full of rules that seem to be anti-democratic (like the electoral college), so why are you picking on my idea? I assure you that my magic wand is at least as big as yours...

The point is that even if you could wave your magic wand and write "no political parties" into the constitution, what you'd wind up with would be either toothless and/unenforceable, or would be a big blow to democracy. You're thinking mainly of democrats and republicans in terms of "political parties", but there isn't a clear line between them and MoveOn in terms of a "no political parties" rule.

Really, any group of 2+ people who is trying to get one or more people elected could be considered a political party. Hence, you wind up with a ban on organized political movements.

[Holman]

I prefer baby steps. Keep what we've got, but try it with serious campaign finance reform.

[Pyperkub]

So as I mentioned in the midterms thread, I'm pretty pessimistic about the functioning of America's democratic institutions going forward - I think there are just too make choke points on legislation that, given the modern partisan environment, make it increasingly difficult to pass any significant (even bipartisan) legislation except in rare circumstances. That made me think about how I would reform America's political institutions were I given a magic wand to that effect.

That in turn made me think it would be interesting to hash out how an OO constitutional convention would go. Obviously none of these changes are realistic given the barriers to reforming the constitution, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

What are the goals of this cOOnstitutional cOOnvention?

The reason America is dysfunctional has more to do with a massively divided electorate and the partisan environment than it does with the institutions. The institutions are actually working as intended (generally) - not really allowing a minority or scant majority to radically enforce its policies without gaining some form of compromise. The problem is that neither half is willing to compromise anymore.

Are there loopholes and pressure points which the highly partisan players are doing their best to exploit? Yup. Always has been and always will be - government is after all the way we have chosen to wield power, and those who hunger and thirst for power always will try to work the angles. However, a 50-50 split in a non-compromise environment is not governable with any form of government.

The only real change which could do anything would be non-winner take all elections. More parties with power means no power without compromise.

[El Guapo]

So as I mentioned in the midterms thread, I'm pretty pessimistic about the functioning of America's democratic institutions going forward - I think there are just too make choke points on legislation that, given the modern partisan environment, make it increasingly difficult to pass any significant (even bipartisan) legislation except in rare circumstances. That made me think about how I would reform America's political institutions were I given a magic wand to that effect.

That in turn made me think it would be interesting to hash out how an OO constitutional convention would go. Obviously none of these changes are realistic given the barriers to reforming the constitution, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

What are the goals of this cOOnstitutional cOOnvention?

The reason America is dysfunctional has more to do with a massively divided electorate and the partisan environment than it does with the institutions. The institutions are actually working as intended (generally) - not really allowing a minority or scant majority to radically enforce its policies without gaining some form of compromise. The problem is that neither half is willing to compromise anymore.

Are there loopholes and pressure points which the highly partisan players are doing their best to exploit? Yup. Always has been and always will be - government is after all the way we have chosen to wield power, and those who hunger and thirst for power always will try to work the angles. However, a 50-50 split in a non-compromise environment is not governable with any form of government.

The only real change which could do anything would be non-winner take all elections. More parties with power means no power without compromise.

Right - you're correct that the institutions are working as designed, except that the functionality of those institutions have depended on customs that have gradually broken down - i.e. originally the veto was intended to be rare, limited mostly to constitutional concerns. Originally the filibuster (once it came into being) was rare. Originally denial of presidential appointments was only for crazy types not for people who the Senate just disagreed with on policy.

The point is to revise the institutions to account for a non-compromise environment. You can't have so many opportunities for an electoral minority to sabotage legislation in a partisan environment. Currently a party with 41 senators and zero representatives (and nothing else) could prevent any legislation even though it only controls a minority of half of one branch of government.

So you make it more possible for a group with a majority (even if a slim one) to do stuff, and since it will be more obvious who is responsible for stuff happening or not happening it will be easier for the people to hold people accountable for the results.

[NickAragua]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

[Kraken]

Well, we're going to have to get rid of most of that pesky old Constitution. Representative democracy isn't working and is out of date.

Under the Kraken Plan (formerly known as the Ironrod Plan), elected representatives will still exist, but they'll be more functionary. Taxpayers will largely determine domestic policy directly.

There are a number of ways to approach the Kraken Plan. Central to all of them is a tax check-off system. A one-dollar, one-vote system is the easiest to explain, although it can be implemented in ways that avoid that (such as weighting all tax returns equally regardless of size).

Every taxpayer receives a form listing all of the government's spending programs. You may allocate your tax payments among up to 50 priorities in 2% increments (or 100 at 1% or 20 at 5% or whatever floats your boat; 50 at 2% is arbitrary).

Congress's main job is to implement the resulting spending priorities defined by the taxpayers. Congress retains the power to initiate and terminate agencies that will appear on the tax ballots (taxpayers can initiate new priorities through write-ins). Departments with defined obligations, such as social security, are outside of the Kraken Plan and remain the purview of Congress. Finally, Congress will finesse the checkoff system's results according to some mechanisms that prevent wild funding swings -- for instance, any given line item may not go up or down by more than 10% per year. We're going to need multiple ways to balance stability with the intent of the taxpayers and ensure that vital interests (like national defense) are met. Oh, and Congress can override the Kraken Plan in predefined ways in times of national emergency like war or depression.

There will be a five-year phase-in to give taxpayers enough feedback to allocate their payments intelligently and to give the government time to prepare for its new priorities. The number of line items presented to taxpayers will be immense at first, but will shrink quickly as unpopular expenditures get zeroed out. Any taxpayer who chooses not to participate merely loses his voice; those who do participate will determine how his money is spent.

Under the one-dollar, one-vote allocation, paying more taxes becomes the way to wield more influence. There won't be much incentive to buy politicians anymore, but the government will still work primarily for the rich (who suddenly want to pay more taxes) as it does now. If that's undesirable we can give each tax return an equal weight regardless of its monetary size. And of course there are degrees between these extremes.

Years ago I subjected the Ironrod Plan to internet scrutiny and came up with ways to address the many problems and objections that were pointed out. I don't have those documented anymore, but there's ultimately no reason that the tax checkoff mechanism can't work to set discretionary domestic spending priorities. Defining "discretionary" gets a little hairy, especially where the war department is concerned, but it's not a showstopper.

---------------

Failing that, I'll settle for a parliamentary system in which multiple parties gain proportional representation. Winner-take-all is the least democratic of all representational systems.

[Holman]

I'd be interested in hearing how parliamentary democracy might actually work out in the U.S. What parties would we see? How would they align?

--

I think the most outdated idea in the U.S. Constitution is that people's interests are more influenced by where they live than by how they live.

[El Guapo]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

That's silly. A major part of the problem is that the minority has TOO much say in legislation.

[RLMullen]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

That's silly. A major part of the problem is that the minority has TOO much say in legislation.

You've been corrupted by the two-party system... and I had such high hopes for your coonstitutional convention.

A minority of one should have a say in legislation - a simple "yes" or "no". The problem is when legislative sub-institutions prevent said legislation from being voted on.

[El Guapo]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

That's silly. A major part of the problem is that the minority has TOO much say in legislation.

You've been corrupted by the two-party system... and I had such high hopes for your coonstitutional convention.

A minority of one should have a say in legislation - a simple "yes" or "no". The problem is when legislative sub-institutions prevent said legislation from being voted on.

A minority should have a say. A minority should as a general rule not be able to unilaterally *block* legislation, because the voters did after all choose the other party platform. If the majority platform proves to be unwise, there's the next election.

Beyond paralyzing gridlock, the other problem is that allowing a minority to unilaterally veto legislation mucks up democratic accountability. If things are going badly, democracy allows the voters to "throw the bums out". If a minority can veto legislation, however, it becomes unclear which "bums" need to be thrown out.

[msduncan]

With that said, here's the Guapo plan:

(1) Congress becomes a unicameral legislature.

(2) There are currently 535 representatives + senators, which amounts to one for every (roughly) 590,000 people. Districts for Congressional members would be determined by some type of formula - something like, you start at a central point in the country and add city blocks to the district in something like a spiral until you hit ~ 590,000 people, then you stop and start the next district. That formula would need to be hashed out, but the goal would be to wind up with contiguous districts (and would be set without regard to state lines). The districts would be redrawn by the same formula roughly every 10 years, and could not be altered by legislators (maybe the formula could be altered by a 2/3rds majority of Congress or something).

(3) Congress members would be elected to four year terms, same as the President.

(4) No filibusters - straight majority vote on everything (as a possible point of compromise I could agree to allow filibusters for a couple defined things). I suppose going unicameral impeachment would have to be a 2/3rds vote by Congress (as opposed to the current majority House vote and 2/3rds senate vote).

(5) President would be mostly unchanged, except that the electoral college would be abolished in favor of a straight majority vote. President would still be term-limited as now.

Otherwise things would be mostly the same - same bill of rights and other amendments as now. Of course I'd make other tweaks, but these are the key structural changes I'd make.

So your convention proposals basically tries to create a Hunger Games type society where city-states control the policies of the entire country? Be prepared for bloodshed.

[El Guapo]

So your convention proposals basically tries to create a Hunger Games type society where city-states control the policies of the entire country? Be prepared for bloodshed.

First of all, the Hunger Games movies are great.

Second, yes the goal is to have the majority of the people in the country decide the public policy of the country, regardless of where they choose to live inside the country. Crazy, I know, but I figure it's about time to give this "will of the people" thing a try.

[malchior]

Late to the thread but any Constitutional Convention that did not seriously consider abandoning the Presidential system for a Parliamentary system is not looking at the root cause of the problem. The Presidential system introduces an inherent power struggle that has become more unstable over time between the legitimacy of Congress and the President. Looking back over the last century since WW2 the President's popularity is a proxy for mid-term results. How is that holding anyone but the person who isn't up for election accountable for policy? It doesn't and is a severe bug in the system. Even when they are popular they tend to lose power in a mid-term and become less effective. It isn't an absolute rule but it generally holds.

I also don't buy Pyperkub's argument that the problem is a divided electorate. They aren't necessarily actually divided as completely apathetic. Most don't trust in the institutions to operate so they don't bother to participate. When you look into it you see that there are vast majorities in support of policies that don't even get discussed. Wealth inequality. Unemployment. Environmental Policy. It isn't very democratic. There is a serious mounting problem around legitimacy and the signs of the corruption are everywhere. For example, the amount of SuperPAC money funneled into these elections was unprecedented and we had our first $100M Senate race. Those are some serious stakes and the people writing those checks are going to expect access and results.

The institutions themselves are definitely broken - the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency are all operating in a relatively bizarre mode right now. For instance, there has been a surge of 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court on the Conservative side that are starting to look statistically significant. In Congress, we have had the least laws passed ever by a factor of 5 fold in the last two Congresses versus the lowest historical Congress before it (in modern times). That'll likely change a bit with the midterm results but not by much I imagine and any that pass won't likely be quality bills that'll actually become law. The Presidency has been effectively working within the laws passed to make policy changes which of course is the cause of the Boehner lawsuit threats. Faced with mounting obstruction they decided to do what they can with what they have. But that only promulgates the dysfunction and has ratcheted up the rhetoric.

[El Guapo]

I would be open to discussing a parliamentary system - as you say I think it would have to be at least discussed during any serious constitutional (or cOOnstitutional) convention. I guess I retained the presidency for my plan out of a reluctance to removing all non-judicial checks on a Congressional majority (to be cautious), but I could be persuaded otherwise.

And while the Supreme Court is arguably dysfunctional, I think you have to retain it pretty much as is, with at most minor tweaks (such as terms). You need to have some form of judicial review in order to make the essential minority rights in the Bill of Rights effective.

[NickAragua]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

That's silly. A major part of the problem is that the minority has TOO much say in legislation.

There's a difference between "completely blocking the process", which is what occurs now, and what the article suggests, which is allowing the minority to put up amendments to legislation under discussion.

Anyway, keep an eye on how you feel re: minority input on legislation in the next two years.

[El Guapo]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

That's silly. A major part of the problem is that the minority has TOO much say in legislation.

There's a difference between "completely blocking the process", which is what occurs now, and what the article suggests, which is allowing the minority to put up amendments to legislation under discussion.

Anyway, keep an eye on how you feel re: minority input on legislation in the next two years.

I don't disagree with that proposal, I'm just saying that it's emphatically not the major problem here. It'd be great if the parties talked more nicely too, but that's also not the problem.

[NickAragua]

Actually, on a somewhat relevant note, I read this article recently:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... epair-list

It basically boils down to "show up for work" and "let the minority party have a say in legislation".

That's silly. A major part of the problem is that the minority has TOO much say in legislation.

There's a difference between "completely blocking the process", which is what occurs now, and what the article suggests, which is allowing the minority to put up amendments to legislation under discussion.

Anyway, keep an eye on how you feel re: minority input on legislation in the next two years.

I don't disagree with that proposal, I'm just saying that it's emphatically not the major problem here. It'd be great if the parties talked more nicely too, but that's also not the problem.

I'll concede that it's a band-aid on a severed limb type of situation.

At the end of the day, regardless of what re-shuffling of procedural legislative rules occurs, it won't solve the underlying problem of a complete lack of good intent or common sense on the part of the participants. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to address that. Campaign finance reform is all well and good, but people will always find a way to slip money (or whatever else) between the cracks somewhere. The best we can do is to strongly limit the time that an individual can spend in a position of power so that they don't get too comfortable in that chair.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

A 2006 NCSL study of term limits found they had little impact on the diversity of chambers and increased the importance of nonpartisan staff and lobbyists. Most observers said the power of lobbyists rose with limits, as new lawmakers relied on them for their policy expertise. But lobbying simultaneously became harder because relationships were so short-lived.

“Although term-limited legislators may need the policy and procedural expertise that lobbyists hold more than their non-term-limited counterparts do, they also are more likely to be suspicious of lobbyists,” the report’s authors wrote. “This creates a new and unique tension in the legislator-lobbyist relationship.”

Those findings were supported by a 2010 Wayne State University study. The influence of lobbyists in Michigan was not only maintained, but it may have been magnified by term limits, a research team found in rounds of interviews with lawmakers there. Lobbyists were also among the three most-cited determinants of whether a bill made it to the floor, they found.

And if a legislator doesn't have to worry about re-election, why worry about pesky things like answering to their constituents? I'm sure they're much more interested in securing a post-public service job.