Gay marriage passes the House of Lords.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is the problem with the US Senate the fault of the institution or the voters?

Both I guess.

It's a recently phenomenon, this problem of the Senate. Even back in the 90s, the Senate was the grown up chamber - the one where party leaders talked to the other side and tried to get compromises done.

[MikeH]

Ah so it's Dubya's fault.

[Lorizael]

One is a revising chamber that carefully weighs issues and has a strong record of returning well balanced amendments and acting as a stabalizing influence on the lower house. The other is the US Senate.

Like I said...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah so it's Dubya's fault.

It's always Dubya's fault.

Well, except for not doing anything to help out AIDS in Africa or not getting immigration reform passed - he was good on those things and crappy on just about every possible thing else.

[kentonio]

Like I said...

"Woot yeah, we're so democratic for having an institution that has blocked the appointment of huge numbers of important public figures for purely political reasons, despite this having no basis in the constitution'?

[Lorizael]

Like I said...

(How long are you going to keep this up? Seriously, just admit that democracy isn't your top priority when it comes to government. It's okay. Really. Like, I don't even think electing officials or voting on propositions is the end all be all of government. The key is that the people consent to their form of government, whatever form it takes, and that they always have the ability to revoke said consent. That said, certain governments are historically less likely to allow the revocation of said consent...)

[giblets]

"Woot yeah, we're so democratic for having an institution that has blocked the appointment of huge numbers of important public figures for purely political reasons, despite this having no basis in the constitution'?

Errm... how is requiring a 60% consensus less democratic than requiring a 51% consensus?

[kentonio]

Like I said...

(How long are you going to keep this up? Seriously, just admit that democracy isn't your top priority when it comes to government. It's okay. Really. Like, I don't even think electing officials or voting on propositions is the end all be all of government. The key is that the people consent to their form of government, whatever form it takes, and that they always have the ability to revoke said consent. That said, certain governments are historically less likely to allow the revocation of said consent...)

We consent to our form of government, so how exactly does that support your case that I don't like democracy? You just undermined your own argument in a single paragraph.

Errm... how is requiring a 60% consensus less democratic than requiring a 51% consensus?

Because the government is not elected on the basic of a 60% majority. You're electing people on a simple majority and then denying those representatives the ability to carry out their mandate because a small minority can block anything they like.

Setting aside the whole thing about filibusters not being even mentioned in the constitution of course.

[giblets]

Because the government is not elected on the basic of a 60% majority. You're electing people on a simple majority and then denying those representatives the ability to carry out their mandate because a small minority can block anything they like.

Setting aside the whole thing about filibusters not being even mentioned in the constitution of course.

The Constitution doesn't specify the rules for how the senate operates. If the senate wants to include filibustering in the rules, it can do so. Likewise, a simple majority is all that would be required to alter the rules and eliminate the filibuster, so clearly the status quo is the simple majority's preferred outcome among possible alternatives.

[kentonio]

The Constitution doesn't specify the rules for how the senate operates. If the senate wants to include filibustering in the rules, it can do so. Likewise, a simple majority is all that would be required to alter the rules and eliminate the filibuster, so clearly the status quo is the simple majority's preferred outcome among possible alternatives.

Or to put it another way, the Senate invented the rule because in a time of gentlemanly conduct they felt pretty sure it would be used sparingly and with honor. Now it's being terribly abused, and neither side has the balls to get rid of it because neither wants to lose the ability to use it for its original purpose.

[Lorizael]

We consent to our form of government, so how exactly does that support your case that I don't like democracy? You just undermined your own argument in a single paragraph.

Consenting to your form of government != democracy.

[kentonio]

Consenting to your form of government != democracy.

Erm..

The key is that the people consent to their form of government, whatever form it takes, and that they always have the ability to revoke said consent.

[Lorizael]

Yes? I didn't say the key to democracy was consent of the people. The key to government is consent of the governed. Democracy means active involvement in government, such that what the government does is determined by the people. You can consent to a dictatorship, but that wouldn't be democracy because, while you may have given the dictatorship the okay, you're (by definition) not involved with how the dictatorship governs.

[kentonio]

Yes? I didn't say the key to democracy was consent of the people. The key to government is consent of the governed. Democracy means active involvement in government, such that what the government does is determined by the people. You can consent to a dictatorship, but that wouldn't be democracy because, while you may have given the dictatorship the okay, you're (by definition) not involved with how the dictatorship governs.

How involved exactly are 99% of people in the current 'democracy'?

[Lorizael]

They're as involved as the Constitution permits. We don't live in a "true" democracy where "every" decision is voted on by the people, whatever that means. Are people's interests not represented in our current government? You betcha. Does that make it not a democracy? Probably not, if we're going with definitions of words that are useful. It means that some parts of our government are democratic, while others clearly aren't. Is that a bad thing? In some cases, certainly; in others, not so much.

Does that make the US more or less democratic than the UK? I don't particularly care. But I do know that the House of Lords is not a democratic institution.

Btw, a likely retort is that I'm shrugging off the problems of my own country because I'm a zealous patriot. Such an assertion is laughable enough to give me an aneurysm. I think America is pretty great at some things, terrible at others, and that's about it. My life's goal involves dismantling all world nations and creating a telepathic collective, so you really shouldn't imagine that my feelings toward the US of A are particularly strong.