The end of the the majority of the majority?

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
A little known policy instituted by the Republicans shortly after Bushes elections was the rule of the ?majority of the majority?. In the Republican caucus they decided that party policy would be that there would be no bipartisan legislation not approved by the majority of the majority.
In other words in the Senate at that time there was 50 Republicans and 26 of them (a majority) would make all the decisions. There would be party discipline. It would be enforced by the 26 (actually they had 27 or 28 at that time) who were part of this majority. It would also be enforced by the the Republican K Street initiative (Tom Delay and others plan to isolate business contributions from individual candidates and have the money be given instead to the Republican Party to distribute to candidates).
Senator Jim Jeffords who was a Republican at that time was the first to violate these rules. He was informed he would be frozen out forever from having any say on legislation. This is what influenced him to change parties to the Democrats.
With the Republicans now having 55 seats the majority number is about 28-29.
What this has done is give 28 Senators who represent about 28 percent of the people control over the US Senate (the same was going in the House).
There were many proposals that clearly had a majority of the Senates votes. Say 24 Republicans and 45 Democrats for a total of 69 votes an overwhelming majority.
But the majority of the majority foiled this will of the people.
What we are seeing now is the lack of fear by the Republicans who are part of the minority of the majority to join with Democrats to vote as they would like.
This has been the big change brought about by the low Bush poll numbers and the public dislike of the deficits, the war in Iraq and the economic policies of the neo-cons.
This bodes well for the country. We could fix Social Security tomorrow for the next 80 years if the Republicans would let a vote be taken on a combination of raising the retirement age a small amount and increasing the SS tax a small amount. Easily gets over 65 votes in the Senate. We could even go a long way to fixing the deficit. Raise the tax rate 1 percent on those earning over 100,000 a year, raise 70 billion in revenue by repealing a fraction of the new business giveaways and cut spending by 100 billion with each party giving up 50 billion of its pet projects.
Let?s hope we this trend continues and the idea that the majority of the majority (which is actually a small minority) shall perish from this country.


 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,746
6,762
126
This space reserved for standing by.

Power is power and just like the One Ring.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
And when the majority of the majority lays something out, the left gets orders from the top to not dare side with them. Pelosi says heel and all the dogs just line right up. Or on the Senate side, they use the filibuster(whic I suppose you consider the will of the people:roll: )
So while you want to suggest dirty politics and not doing the will of the people, you fail to see how the other side acts as well. Politics is a dirty business, I'm not sure how you could have missed it and now suddenly thought you found something new or different from what has been happening in politics for a long time.
Both sides are guilty, both sides don't do what the will of the people is(example: Pork busting and budget cuts)

 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
The Senate Dems do exactly the same thing and with the same results. Some Dems that would vote with the Republicans on some issues are frozen out and forced to vote with the minority. So what?

Politics as usual. It sucks. But don't try to give the impression that only one side is involved in this kind of political power grab. They are both equally guilty in this matter.

EDIT: FYI... Jeffords went Independent when he defected, not Dem. He votes with the Dems most of the time but there is a (I) next to his name, not a (D).
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So who is giving Bush blow jobs?

jealous? :roll:

(It's been revealed to me that it's ok to make these sorts of comments as long as they are jokes. :roll: )
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: zendari
Tax the rich!

Hey look! Another post unrelated to the thread!

The idea of party discipline is hardly new, or unique to the US, but it has some serious dangers in democracies with a small number of parties, and no system of 'representative' voting.

If you take a country with 4-5 major parties, where 'majorities' rarely if ever belong to one party, then party iscipline allows each party's platfrm to be truthfully represented.

In a two-party system, there is (and should be) a lot of consideration to each candidate's personal views, both at election time, and in legislative activities. Breaking this down leads to a breakdown of the system as it was intended to function.

Tying candidates' funding to such a disciplinary system is coercive and wrong. Revoke their party nomination if you don't like their positions, but they should be free to do their own fundraising at all times.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
This is the problem with political parties. And like some other people have said, this isn't just a Republican problem. Personally I think the whole concept of political parties is a disservice to the people these clowns are supposed to represent...at least the way most people seem to implement the party scheme. The basic concept isn't too bad, but the lengths to which people take the "competition" aspect of it is just stupid. This isn't a damn Vikings/Packers game.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is the problem with political parties. And like some other people have said, this isn't just a Republican problem. Personally I think the whole concept of political parties is a disservice to the people these clowns are supposed to represent...at least the way most people seem to implement the party scheme. The basic concept isn't too bad, but the lengths to which people take the "competition" aspect of it is just stupid. This isn't a damn Vikings/Packers game.

Nope, it's far worse than that. We're talking Yankees/Red Sox - OSU/Michigan rivalry x1000.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is the problem with political parties. And like some other people have said, this isn't just a Republican problem. Personally I think the whole concept of political parties is a disservice to the people these clowns are supposed to represent...at least the way most people seem to implement the party scheme. The basic concept isn't too bad, but the lengths to which people take the "competition" aspect of it is just stupid. This isn't a damn Vikings/Packers game.

Nope, it's far worse than that. We're talking Yankees/Red Sox - OSU/Michigan rivalry x1000.

You're probably right, Vikings and Packers are a little too tame. Yankees/Red Sox sounds about right.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: zendari
Tax the rich!

Hey look! Another post unrelated to the thread!

The idea of party discipline is hardly new, or unique to the US, but it has some serious dangers in democracies with a small number of parties, and no system of 'representative' voting.
Try reading the whole OP, techs wants to increase taxes on the people making $100k who already pay high taxes.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: zendari
Try reading the whole OP, techs wants to increase taxes on the people making $100k who already pay high taxes.

And what does that have to do with the actual issue he's talking about?

Oh that's right, NOTHING.