Senate Rant
I am now almost certain that the American government is broken. Horribly horribly broken. Not only has the Senate had to gut public health care in order to pass any kind of healthcare reform, an option that passed the House of Representatives with a majority and would have passed the Senate with a majority, it has had to pander to the demands of each and every individual senator who ended up voting on the measure to do so. This has occured for two reasons:
1) Thanks to the combination of filibuster power and the Republican party voting 'no' as a bloc on breaking the filibuster on almost every bill the Democrats have proposed since the Stimulus package (especially during this health care reform debate, where they voted 'no' as a bloc to break the filibuster on a military appropriations bill in the hopes of using it to stall the health care bill), the Democrats MUST have the votes of every Democratic senator and two independent senators in order to pass ANY legislation.
2) The Democrats and independents have not organised into a bloc the way the Republicans have, so many of them need to be bribed or compromised with in order to break the filibuster.
This means that any single individual senator can now exercise a disproportionate amount of control over the fate of the country simply by threatening to vote 'no' on important bills until his demands are met. Obviously, there is a limit to the extent of his demands, but they can go so far as giving everyone in Nebraska free Medicare while the rest of the country pays for it.
It's worse than one-party politics, this is a series of short-lived, petty dictators who can hold the entire legislative system hostage. And while this can be solved by the Democrats going as hard line as the Republicans, that in and of itself would constitute a legislative dictatorship and undermine the American system of government, which is completely dependent on the idea that no party will ever always vote as a bloc because the individuals that make it up will succumb to their own greed or fear and cross the aisle.
In fact, the way the Republicans are playing the game at the moment has already done so. In essence, the Republican party has become an autocracy where the membership is kept in line via the fear that the Republican National Convention will cut support for them and set up another candidate in their place if they dare to stray too far from the party line. The RNC has gone so far as to post a list of 10 commandments, which, if any Republican party member opposes more than three, the RNC will disown them and find a replacement candidate, like that moderate republican incumbent who they replaced with a more conservative candidate.
Now, all's fair in love, war, and politics, but if it is, in fact, possible for a party with only 40% of the seats in the Senate to hold the entire legislative branch at gun-point, then something is seriously wrong with our government, and if such a party actually feels the need to hold the legislative branch at gunpoint and will go so far as threatening their own membership in order to do so, there is something seriously wrong with our society.
Now I'm all for bipartisan compromises, but it's not like the Republicans are using their filibuster power to broker a compromise deal with the Democrats. There is no negotiation, and in fact the RNC has essentially forbade negotiation in their commandments. While this has made the Republican party completely impotent since they are not proposing any reforms themselves and are simply opposing every move the Democrats make, it has forced the Democrats to make unsavory deals in order to pass anything, which the Republicans then use as political fodder. "Look at all this pork-barrel spending" they cry "this is why you shouldn't elect Democrats. They'll waste your money on pet projects." And while I do agree that the Democrats would probably be spending a little bit wastefully anyways due to the nature of the party organization, the fact is that they would be making fewer deals of this nature if the Republicans weren't making it impossible for anything to get done without them.
In fact, our government is DESIGNED with the idea of pork-barrel spending. Bribe amendments and pandering are as old as the parties themselves, and since the founding fathers wrote the constitution with the hope that parties wouldn't form at all, the only way anything was ever supposed to pass was by catering to the needs of the majority. That is how the system works. Complaining about pork-barrel spending is like complaining about bureaucracies or taxes. Oh, nobody really likes them, but the government really cannot function without them, and while you can make them better, demanding that they be eliminated is like demanding that people stop complaining about pork barrel politics in order to garner votes: it sounds nice to everyone, but it's not like you can actually do it without radically changing the government and human nature.
A lot of the problem actually has to do with a fundamental part of the system which was logical back when the constitution was first written but has lost a lot of it's relevancy. This has to do with both houses being based on geography. Originally, the house was meant to represent the people, and the senate that governments of the states themselves. This made sense back in the day, because the states were originally politically independent entities. Having equal representation for each state, therefore, made sense. Moreover, the states themselves were supposed to determine which senators to send, and in many states these were originally positions appointed by the governor. In fact, this set up itself was a compromise so that states like Rhode Island would agree to ratify the Constitution. This set up the two elements of the Senate which make it broken today: it over-represents the views of certain people, and it's membership is based upon geography, making it redundant with the House.
The over-representation means that urban-populations tend to be under-represented. If you are in a state with large urban centers, like New York or California, or if you come from a large state like Texas, your personal vote is worth less than if you come from an underpopulated state like Alaska or if you come from a small state like Delaware. This is especially troubling if you live in California, because as the most populated state you have the least say in the government by living here.
The second problem is representation by geography. This is fine if one house does it, because people who live near each other are indeed affected by similar things, and in fact the HoR does this fairly well because the districts are small enough that everyone there has a few common interests. On the state level, however, this does not make as much sense. Moreover, since we already have geographic representation in the House, why do we need it again in the senate? And since the states have plenty of autonomy within their own jurisdictions (and I do believe states should be able to make independent decisions since it overcomes some of these problems) why do that state governments need direct representation, especially since they are using it to meddle in the affairs of other states?
Geography also leads to the unique two-party system in America. Since as a representative you have to win the votes of an entire district, it is very difficult for small parties to gain enough support in a geographical area to get a representative, even if nationwide they would have enough votes to get someone elected. Thus, as a voter I am restricted to two real choices, and thus only two world-views. What if I am socially conservative, but want a regulated economy? What if I believe in an unregulated free market and conservative market principles, but I also favor gay marriage or abortion? What if I feel the democrats or republicans go too far, or not far enough? Those views should be represented too.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, that I believe that the senate as it exists should be replaced by a parliament-style council, where voters vote for parties and then within those parties vote for representatives. If feel such a system would better represent the nation as it stands today, where the federal government has far more influence and control than in the 18th and 19th centuries and where the urban and sub-urban population is much larger, more diverse, and more important.
1) Thanks to the combination of filibuster power and the Republican party voting 'no' as a bloc on breaking the filibuster on almost every bill the Democrats have proposed since the Stimulus package (especially during this health care reform debate, where they voted 'no' as a bloc to break the filibuster on a military appropriations bill in the hopes of using it to stall the health care bill), the Democrats MUST have the votes of every Democratic senator and two independent senators in order to pass ANY legislation.
2) The Democrats and independents have not organised into a bloc the way the Republicans have, so many of them need to be bribed or compromised with in order to break the filibuster.
This means that any single individual senator can now exercise a disproportionate amount of control over the fate of the country simply by threatening to vote 'no' on important bills until his demands are met. Obviously, there is a limit to the extent of his demands, but they can go so far as giving everyone in Nebraska free Medicare while the rest of the country pays for it.
It's worse than one-party politics, this is a series of short-lived, petty dictators who can hold the entire legislative system hostage. And while this can be solved by the Democrats going as hard line as the Republicans, that in and of itself would constitute a legislative dictatorship and undermine the American system of government, which is completely dependent on the idea that no party will ever always vote as a bloc because the individuals that make it up will succumb to their own greed or fear and cross the aisle.
In fact, the way the Republicans are playing the game at the moment has already done so. In essence, the Republican party has become an autocracy where the membership is kept in line via the fear that the Republican National Convention will cut support for them and set up another candidate in their place if they dare to stray too far from the party line. The RNC has gone so far as to post a list of 10 commandments, which, if any Republican party member opposes more than three, the RNC will disown them and find a replacement candidate, like that moderate republican incumbent who they replaced with a more conservative candidate.
Now, all's fair in love, war, and politics, but if it is, in fact, possible for a party with only 40% of the seats in the Senate to hold the entire legislative branch at gun-point, then something is seriously wrong with our government, and if such a party actually feels the need to hold the legislative branch at gunpoint and will go so far as threatening their own membership in order to do so, there is something seriously wrong with our society.
Now I'm all for bipartisan compromises, but it's not like the Republicans are using their filibuster power to broker a compromise deal with the Democrats. There is no negotiation, and in fact the RNC has essentially forbade negotiation in their commandments. While this has made the Republican party completely impotent since they are not proposing any reforms themselves and are simply opposing every move the Democrats make, it has forced the Democrats to make unsavory deals in order to pass anything, which the Republicans then use as political fodder. "Look at all this pork-barrel spending" they cry "this is why you shouldn't elect Democrats. They'll waste your money on pet projects." And while I do agree that the Democrats would probably be spending a little bit wastefully anyways due to the nature of the party organization, the fact is that they would be making fewer deals of this nature if the Republicans weren't making it impossible for anything to get done without them.
In fact, our government is DESIGNED with the idea of pork-barrel spending. Bribe amendments and pandering are as old as the parties themselves, and since the founding fathers wrote the constitution with the hope that parties wouldn't form at all, the only way anything was ever supposed to pass was by catering to the needs of the majority. That is how the system works. Complaining about pork-barrel spending is like complaining about bureaucracies or taxes. Oh, nobody really likes them, but the government really cannot function without them, and while you can make them better, demanding that they be eliminated is like demanding that people stop complaining about pork barrel politics in order to garner votes: it sounds nice to everyone, but it's not like you can actually do it without radically changing the government and human nature.
A lot of the problem actually has to do with a fundamental part of the system which was logical back when the constitution was first written but has lost a lot of it's relevancy. This has to do with both houses being based on geography. Originally, the house was meant to represent the people, and the senate that governments of the states themselves. This made sense back in the day, because the states were originally politically independent entities. Having equal representation for each state, therefore, made sense. Moreover, the states themselves were supposed to determine which senators to send, and in many states these were originally positions appointed by the governor. In fact, this set up itself was a compromise so that states like Rhode Island would agree to ratify the Constitution. This set up the two elements of the Senate which make it broken today: it over-represents the views of certain people, and it's membership is based upon geography, making it redundant with the House.
The over-representation means that urban-populations tend to be under-represented. If you are in a state with large urban centers, like New York or California, or if you come from a large state like Texas, your personal vote is worth less than if you come from an underpopulated state like Alaska or if you come from a small state like Delaware. This is especially troubling if you live in California, because as the most populated state you have the least say in the government by living here.
The second problem is representation by geography. This is fine if one house does it, because people who live near each other are indeed affected by similar things, and in fact the HoR does this fairly well because the districts are small enough that everyone there has a few common interests. On the state level, however, this does not make as much sense. Moreover, since we already have geographic representation in the House, why do we need it again in the senate? And since the states have plenty of autonomy within their own jurisdictions (and I do believe states should be able to make independent decisions since it overcomes some of these problems) why do that state governments need direct representation, especially since they are using it to meddle in the affairs of other states?
Geography also leads to the unique two-party system in America. Since as a representative you have to win the votes of an entire district, it is very difficult for small parties to gain enough support in a geographical area to get a representative, even if nationwide they would have enough votes to get someone elected. Thus, as a voter I am restricted to two real choices, and thus only two world-views. What if I am socially conservative, but want a regulated economy? What if I believe in an unregulated free market and conservative market principles, but I also favor gay marriage or abortion? What if I feel the democrats or republicans go too far, or not far enough? Those views should be represented too.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, that I believe that the senate as it exists should be replaced by a parliament-style council, where voters vote for parties and then within those parties vote for representatives. If feel such a system would better represent the nation as it stands today, where the federal government has far more influence and control than in the 18th and 19th centuries and where the urban and sub-urban population is much larger, more diverse, and more important.