American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[San Lumen]

and do a a majority support these bills? if so they are defeating the very purpose of democracy and having elections. They are preventing the majority from enacting what they were elected to do.

But they are, at least in theory, expected to vote as their own constituents wish. You can vote as the overall majority wishes, but the consequence is that your own voters in your own district could fire you for defying them in favor of the overall public.

as I said some of these districts would elect one of my dogs if nominated if nominated as a Republican.

[Incelastan]

I would assume yes, however the constituents of those who walked out do not support those bills, and so they are representing their constituents and preventing those bills from being passed. It is precisely the job of the opposition to try and prevent the majority from enacting those laws.

Therefore why even bother having a democracy, equal representation or elections if the minority can prevent the elected legislature from functioning?

Yes they do.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/re ... ns/2021/r2

§ 2. Quorum. a. A majority of all the Senators elected shall
constitute a quorum to do business. In case a less number than a quorum
of the Senate shall convene, those present are authorized to send the
Sergeant at Arms, or any other person, for the absent Senators.

and that would be 31 members out of 63. Democrats currently have 42 seats. Even if every Republican refused to show up the business of government would proceed without them.

1. The minority cannot always, of course, prevent the majority. In fact, it's rather difficult to do when the majority is determined enough. But it's healthy to have some guardrails in case of majoritarian tyranny. Because sometimes the majority wants to ride roughshot over individual rights, for instance.
2. What is the point of having residential representation at all if it's just about what the aggregate public wants? Think on that one.

[Neutraligon]

I would assume yes, however the constituents of those who walked out do not support those bills, and so they are representing their constituents and preventing those bills from being passed. It is precisely the job of the opposition to try and prevent the majority from enacting those laws.

Therefore why even bother having a democracy, equal representation or elections if the minority can prevent the elected legislature from functioning?

Because them having enough members to prevent a quorum is precisely the result of democracy. It is quit literally democracy in action.

Yes they do.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/re ... ns/2021/r2

§ 2. Quorum. a. A majority of all the Senators elected shall
constitute a quorum to do business. In case a less number than a quorum
of the Senate shall convene, those present are authorized to send the
Sergeant at Arms, or any other person, for the absent Senators.

and that would be 31 members out of 63. Democrats currently have 42 seats. Even if every Republican refused to show up the business of government would proceed without them.

Correct, you are still factually wrong about there not being a quorum rule. Like I said elections have consequences. In oregon enough Republicans whre voted for that they can ensure a quorum does not happen. In New York they cannot due to not having enough people elected.

[Incelastan]

But they are, at least in theory, expected to vote as their own constituents wish. You can vote as the overall majority wishes, but the consequence is that your own voters in your own district could fire you for defying them in favor of the overall public.

as I said some of these districts would elect one of my dogs if nominated if nominated as a Republican.

And that is their right as the electorate of that district. For the same reason that you oppose term limits, because it's undemocratic to deny the people to elect whomever they wish.

[Neutraligon]

But they are, at least in theory, expected to vote as their own constituents wish. You can vote as the overall majority wishes, but the consequence is that your own voters in your own district could fire you for defying them in favor of the overall public.

as I said some of these districts would elect one of my dogs if nominated if nominated as a Republican.

And?

[San Lumen]

Therefore why even bother having a democracy, equal representation or elections if the minority can prevent the elected legislature from functioning?



and that would be 31 members out of 63. Democrats currently have 42 seats. Even if every Republican refused to show up the business of government would proceed without them.

1. The minority cannot always, of course, prevent the majority. In fact, it's rather difficult to do when the majority is determined enough. But it's healthy to have some guardrails in case of majoritarian tyranny. Because sometimes the majority wants to ride roughshot over individual rights, for instance.
2. What is the point of having residential representation at all if it's just about what the aggregate public wants? Think on that one.

because in a democracy you respect the outcome of elections. Strange how don't see Democrats doing this in red states to stop government from functioning. They likely have enough seats in many states with Republican controlled legislatures they could keep state government from functioning. Why don't they? Oh its because they respect the outcome of elections.

[Bombadil]

as I said some of these districts would elect one of my dogs if nominated if nominated as a Republican.

And that is their right as the electorate of that district.

Well sort of, it's predicated on the idea that an electorate is freely and fully informed. That's why I'm not overly concerned with the rules around turning up or not, as the issue is the outcome of a problem not the root.

The root is the fact that voters are often not voting for their interests, not because they're stupid but because those elected are aligned to their donors not their voters. The incentive is to misrepresent your views, and voting patterns, to the electorate and get the money to pay for those misrepresentations.

If I really had my way I'd get rid of private political parties as a whole.. but give me time.

[Neutraligon]

1. The minority cannot always, of course, prevent the majority. In fact, it's rather difficult to do when the majority is determined enough. But it's healthy to have some guardrails in case of majoritarian tyranny. Because sometimes the majority wants to ride roughshot over individual rights, for instance.
2. What is the point of having residential representation at all if it's just about what the aggregate public wants? Think on that one.

because in a democracy you respect the outcome of elections. Strange how don't see Democrats doing this in red states to stop government from functioning. They likely have enough seats in many states with Republican controlled legislatures they could keep state government from functioning. Why don't they? Oh its because they respect the outcome of elections.

And they are respecting the outcome of elections. They have enough people elected that they can prevent the quorum, which is the result of an election. Since they have enough elected people them using the power they have as a result of the election is very much respecting the ourcome. YOu seem to have forgotten the Texas walkout by democrats, thus preventing a quorum. SO yes, dems are doing it.

...From what I recall you supported the dems doing so.

[San Lumen]

And that is their right as the electorate of that district.

Well sort of, it's predicated on the idea that an electorate is freely and fully informed. That's why I'm not overly concerned with the rules around turning up or not, as the issue is the outcome of a problem not the root.

The root is the fact that voters are often not voting for their interests, not because they're stupid but because those elected are aligned to their donors not their voters. The incentive is to misrepresent your views, and voting patterns, to the electorate and get the money to pay for those misrepresentations.

If I really had my way I'd get rid of private political parties as a whole.. but give me time.

banning private political parties would probably violate the first amendment.

[San Lumen]

because in a democracy you respect the outcome of elections. Strange how don't see Democrats doing this in red states to stop government from functioning. They likely have enough seats in many states with Republican controlled legislatures they could keep state government from functioning. Why don't they? Oh its because they respect the outcome of elections.

And they are respecting the outcome of elections. They have enough people elected that they can prevent the quorum, which is the result of an election. Since they have enough elected people them using the power they have as a result of the election is very much respecting the ourcome. YOu seem to have forgotten the Texas walkout by democrats, thus preventing a quorum. SO yes, dems are doing it.

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

[Neutraligon]

And they are respecting the outcome of elections. They have enough people elected that they can prevent the quorum, which is the result of an election. Since they have enough elected people them using the power they have as a result of the election is very much respecting the ourcome. YOu seem to have forgotten the Texas walkout by democrats, thus preventing a quorum. SO yes, dems are doing it.

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

Likely because like in New York for the Republicans, they do not have enough people to do so.

[American Legionaries]

And they are respecting the outcome of elections. They have enough people elected that they can prevent the quorum, which is the result of an election. Since they have enough elected people them using the power they have as a result of the election is very much respecting the ourcome. YOu seem to have forgotten the Texas walkout by democrats, thus preventing a quorum. SO yes, dems are doing it.

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

If they had that power, it seems kinda shitty to have not used it.

[San Lumen]

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

Likely because like in New York for the Republicans, they do not have enough people to do so.

but in many states they probably do.

[Incelastan]

And they are respecting the outcome of elections. They have enough people elected that they can prevent the quorum, which is the result of an election. Since they have enough elected people them using the power they have as a result of the election is very much respecting the ourcome. YOu seem to have forgotten the Texas walkout by democrats, thus preventing a quorum. SO yes, dems are doing it.

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

Why didn't they do a better job of stopping the Iraq War? Blocking the Patriot Act? Blocking conservative Justices and Judges? Just some examples. There are a number of such questions. But that's about political incompetence, not about what the minority has the right to do.

[San Lumen]

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

Why didn't they do a better job of stopping the Iraq War? There are a number of such questions. But that's about political incompetence, not about what the minority has the right to do.

Showing up for the job you were elected to do is incompetence?

[Neutraligon]

Likely because like in New York for the Republicans, they do not have enough people to do so.

but in many states they probably do.

Looking at Florida, they have enough if every Dem walks out. Whether every dem is willing to walk out is another story. I am not going to look up every state, but most of the ones passing trans laws...I actually doubt they would have enough to prevent quorum.

[San Lumen]

why don;t they do it in many states on a regular basis? They could have stopped these anti trans laws and abortion bans. Heck they could have prevented all the laws DeSantis signed.

If they had that power, it seems kinda shitty to have not used it.

so why don't they do it? In your state Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers and the people voted for that in a free and fair elections something you and Republicans don't believe in.

[San Lumen]

but in many states they probably do.

Looking at Florida, they have enough if every Dem walks out. Whether every dem is willing to walk out is another story. I am not going to look up every state, but most of the ones passing trans laws...I actually doubt they would have enough to prevent quorum.

In a number of states they probably could so why haven't they done this in states were they'd be able such as Florida?

[Neutraligon]

Looking at Florida, they have enough if every Dem walks out. Whether every dem is willing to walk out is another story. I am not going to look up every state, but most of the ones passing trans laws...I actually doubt they would have enough to prevent quorum.

In a number of states they probably could so why haven't they done this in states were they'd be able such as Florida?

No idea, maybe they did not have enough dems willing to do so, since the dems may be in districts that are tossup. Which states do you think they might have enough?

[American Legionaries]

If they had that power, it seems kinda shitty to have not used it.

so why don't they do it?

Because they're shitty, evidently.

In your state Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers and the people voted for that in a free and fair elections something you and Republicans don't believe in.

How do I not believe that Democrats have a super majority?

[San Lumen]

In a number of states they probably could so why haven't they done this in states were they'd be able such as Florida?

No idea, maybe they did not have enough dems willing to do so, since the dems may be in districts that are tossup. Which states do you think they might have enough?

New Hampshire, Arizona, Georgia. Maybe Kansas and Iowa along with North Carolina.

[San Lumen]

so why don't they do it?

Because they're shitty, evidently.

In your state Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers and the people voted for that in a free and fair elections something you and Republicans don't believe in.

How do I not believe that Democrats have a super majority?

Because they respect the outcome of elections?

That's not what I said at all. Stop making stupid comments.

[Tarsonis]

If they had that power, it seems kinda shitty to have not used it.

so why don't they do it? In your state Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers and the people voted for that in a free and fair elections something you and Republicans don't believe in.

Are you utterly incapable of making your argument without attacking other players?

[San Lumen]

so why don't they do it? In your state Democrats have a supermajority in both chambers and the people voted for that in a free and fair elections something you and Republicans don't believe in.

Are you utterly incapable of making your argument without attacking other players?

Thats not an attack. AL has repeatedly stated they don't believe in free and fair elections or democracy.

[American Legionaries]

Because they're shitty, evidently.



How do I not believe that Democrats have a super majority?

Because they respect the outcome of elections?

That's shitty.

That's not what I said at all. Stop making stupid comments.

Quote chains exist, we can see what you wrote.