Filibuster Idea: "Declaring Discord"

[padren]

I was thinking, since there are benefits in having filibusters, but also a lot of draw backs, an alternative would be to normally disallow Filibusters, but allow them via a specific mechanism:

 

If the minority party feels they are consistently blocked out and railroaded due to party-line votes by the majority, a call to vote on "Declaring Discord" can be made where a unanimous party-line vote of only the minority would allow Filibusters until the next election cycle, but would also cut pay by 10% for all representatives, across both parties for the same duration. The vote would require 33% to pass based on total numbers, so essentially the minority party would have to at least capture that percent, or vote in coalitions with other minority parties (not likely relevant with only two strong parties, but it would allow for potential shifts.) and still require cross-unanimous support across voting parties.

 

Basically, it may be hard to create the circumstances to be able to use filibusters, but it would allow a minority party to do so regardless of how aggressive or exclusionary the majority is.

 

Since no one (especially politicians) like to take a pay cut it would actually lend some credibility to their determination to filibuster, and deter majority parties from letting relations deteriorate that far.

 

 

Plus, it would be sweet to see them financially cut upon themselves when they get overly fired up and derpy, when usually it's the public that ends up paying for it entirely.

They'll end up comical or credible so it's kinda a win-win either way.

[CaptainPanic]

Plus, it would be sweet to see them financially cut upon themselves when they get overly fired up and derpy, when usually it's the public that ends up paying for it entirely.

Don't worry about the financial situation of the politicians.

The lobby of something will pay for their expenses. And if it doesn't pay them directly, they will be promised some lucrative job after they quit their politicians' job.

 

I can imagine a law to reduce some pollution, which would cost some industry a lot of money. They will spend a few million on a lobby... you can then bet on it that a minority will block that law indefinitely if they get a chance... and somehow, the politicians blocking it will find work in that industry or related corporations or institutes.

[Marat]

Since the typical Senator is already a millionaire (America is actually a plutocracy, not a democracy), a pay cut might not have enough bite.

 

To avoid government paralysis we need simple majority rule in both houses of Congress, so a majority vote should be able to force the end of debate.

[padren]

Since the typical Senator is already a millionaire (America is actually a plutocracy, not a democracy), a pay cut might not have enough bite.

 

To avoid government paralysis we need simple majority rule in both houses of Congress, so a majority vote should be able to force the end of debate.

 

Well, having a simple majority as the litmus test basically means Filibusters would cease to exist, and while that would end paralysis it would not be very likely that "what got moving" was any good, or even preferable to paralysis in most cases. Right now we've had so much horrible gridlock over a good amount of time we'd welcome any movement as better than nothing - but how often has that not been the case? How many elections have been down to the wire on which party will control either house by one or two seats?

 

The full expectation is that the majority party will railroad the minority party because they have absolutely no reason to even talk to them. If the minority party can, we fully expect them to resort to filibusters and whatever other monkey wrenching schemes they can come up with.

 

 

Whether it's pay based or something else, could something like this work so that ( A ) a majority would actually have an incentive to work with and not antagonize the minority ( B ) minority parties could still force influence (via filibustering) but at a personal cost that makes it a "last resort" instead of the first tactic?

[CaptainPanic]

Why is it bad to have a gridlock in politics?

 

The fact that politicians can change a country/economy very quickly is part of the problem, not part of the solution.