Like @jbview, I'd really like a system that
1) allows a determined, intense minority to defeat a lukewarm majority; but *also*
2) allows a determined majority to defeat a determined minority.
Getting to that spot is extremely difficult, both procedurally and politically.
-
-
Replying to @MattGlassman312 @marcidale and
I think procedurally it can be done. But I also don't think there are half a dozen Senators who want that outcome.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jbview @MattGlassman312 and
The idea Jeff Merkley spitballed with Ezra Klein in 2010 was to actually have a failure to keep more than N Senators on the floor (with N possibly increasing over time) represent the end of debate. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/sen_jeff_merkley_this_isnt_a_q.html …pic.twitter.com/YjEh3V8sM7
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @nbeaudrot @jbview and
Requiring 41 to end debate can be coupled with requiring 41 to be on the floor or to respond to a quorum call
2 replies 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @NormOrnstein @nbeaudrot and
We still have to count to 41, though. So I assume this means empowering the chair to make an unappealable unilateral decision? I'm not sure even *majority* Senators are ready to hand that much power to VP.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattGlassman312 @NormOrnstein and
Any other method of counting will necessitate at least one roll call vote, which would defeat the whole purpose.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattGlassman312 @nbeaudrot and
You can get votes at 4 in the morning; require them to be in town on weekends/Mondays, with short notice. If several are unable to show up, you can prevail. You eliminate the obstruction on minor measures. You get a spotlight on major issues. like universal background checks
3 replies 4 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @NormOrnstein @MattGlassman312 and
There are ways of increasing pain, especially with 14 up for reelection who want to be back home campaigning, and you can craft a rule that requires them to be present on the floor to continue debate. Not perfect, of course. No guarantee of succession. Infinitely better than now!
2 replies 4 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @NormOrnstein @MattGlassman312 and
I agree with the logic of shifting the burden; I just don't really think it would matter in practice (except for the cases with a long-term absent Senator and a slim margin). Beyond that? I no longer think a long-term compromise is possible, so....
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @jbview @NormOrnstein and
I no longer see the point in shooting various holes in the current situation *unless* it's a path for Manchin et al. to get where the Senate eventually wants to go.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Manchin will obviously need to do a big Kabuki dance to shift his position. It's fair enough to give him that as long as the endgoal is reached.
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet @NormOrnstein and
Yes, of course. Just saying that "What's the path for Manchin to get from here to there?" is a totally different conversation than "What's a good way to run the Senate?"
1 reply 4 retweets 18 likes -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.