Starting the think it out
This will be a beginning ramble on some thoughts about American government, partly triggered by a "60 Minutes" segment last night about the inability of the Senate of the United States to enact any legislation.
Originally, the Senate was conceived as a method of giving the States, themselves, some say in how the nation was governed. It was ill considered, however, as the Senators were given tenure for a six year term. The only time a State had any control over a Senator was while one was awaiting re-election. Any other time, and a Senator represented only himself, not his State.
The 19th Amendment took the election or appointment of Senators away from State governments, and required their election by the people of their State, effectively turning the Senate into a political eco of the House of Representatives.
The Senate sets its own Rules of Order, meaning that however it decides to do things is how it does them. Through recent years, this has become changed greatly. Unlimited discussion of anything is one of the Senate's rules, meaning that anyone can stop anything the Senate does by simply talking about it--at great length. It's reached the point that there are no filibusters any longer, there are only threats of them. Any individual Senator may stop action on anything just by stating his intent. That means that, effectively, the Senate has reached the point that it can no longer act by majority rule, it must act unanimously. Formally, if something is deemed important enough, it can be enacted by a "supermajority" of 60 per cent (to stop debate). Unfortunately, the party organization in the Senate is 53/47, not a division able to force any action on anything.
At the same time, there is the increasing polarization of the parties. Nearly everything that does get done gets done by the 54/47 vote. This division of the parties is how republics are supposed to run, of course, but in a body that requires a 60/40 division to get anything passed, the problem can be seen. When the minority party refuses to compromise, there's a real problem,
I have a few thoughts about what I think about how Senators should be named, and how their tenure should be set, but I will let that ride for now.
Originally, the Senate was conceived as a method of giving the States, themselves, some say in how the nation was governed. It was ill considered, however, as the Senators were given tenure for a six year term. The only time a State had any control over a Senator was while one was awaiting re-election. Any other time, and a Senator represented only himself, not his State.
The 19th Amendment took the election or appointment of Senators away from State governments, and required their election by the people of their State, effectively turning the Senate into a political eco of the House of Representatives.
The Senate sets its own Rules of Order, meaning that however it decides to do things is how it does them. Through recent years, this has become changed greatly. Unlimited discussion of anything is one of the Senate's rules, meaning that anyone can stop anything the Senate does by simply talking about it--at great length. It's reached the point that there are no filibusters any longer, there are only threats of them. Any individual Senator may stop action on anything just by stating his intent. That means that, effectively, the Senate has reached the point that it can no longer act by majority rule, it must act unanimously. Formally, if something is deemed important enough, it can be enacted by a "supermajority" of 60 per cent (to stop debate). Unfortunately, the party organization in the Senate is 53/47, not a division able to force any action on anything.
At the same time, there is the increasing polarization of the parties. Nearly everything that does get done gets done by the 54/47 vote. This division of the parties is how republics are supposed to run, of course, but in a body that requires a 60/40 division to get anything passed, the problem can be seen. When the minority party refuses to compromise, there's a real problem,
I have a few thoughts about what I think about how Senators should be named, and how their tenure should be set, but I will let that ride for now.