Senate and House

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

What does everybody think of the Republicans winning the house and senate?

Edited November 5, 2014 by Morgan Fraser

[Ayayay]

Meh, Democratic president so I think we might have even less done than before (if that's even possible)

[Adama]

Meh, Democratic president so I think we might have even less done than before (if that's even possible)

Don't doubt them Under. They will find a way.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Since Obama won't do anything about ISIS or Ebola, That really trashed him and made his approval rating plummet. We need an Independent Government; Independent Commander-In-Chief, Independent Senate, Independent House, Independent Congress

[Ayayay]

Since Obama won't do anything about ISIS or Ebola, That really trashed him and made his approval rating plummet. We need an Independent Government; Independent Commander-In-Chief, Independent Senate, Independent House, Independent Congress

Uh what? He is doing stuff about ISIS and Ebola but let's ignore that for now. WTF is an "independent government?"

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

Uh what? He is doing stuff about ISIS and Ebola but let's ignore that for now. WTF is an "independent government?"

A government that is between both parties,

 

 

And what is Obama doing? Please tell me... Tell me so I can know. I can promise you that he hasn't done anything, but I'm all ears for what you're gonna say.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Morgan Fraser

[Athanasios]

I suggest that America abandons the Westminster model of Majoritarian/Plurality representational democracy and go with a proportional representation democratic system instead! This way Duverger's law will not come into practice and citizens can choose between a plethora of political parties that actually represent their interests instead of having to choose between the "least of the evil" parties and candidates in a 2 party system.

 

Lol, but seriously, FPTP elections are awful.

 

Of course, reforming the system in that way is never going to happen, but to answer your question, this election has now secured Obama's "lame-duckness" for his last two years. Legislation will butt heads with executive and nothing substantial will get done.

 

The reason Obama has been a relative disappointment to most Americans is because he's been unable to pass the legislation he promised due to a Republican majority in the house. Now with Republicans controlling both sides of congress, the next two years will basically be political stagnation.

 

However, statistically midterm elections will almost always tend to favor whatever political party does not have the presidency, so this outcome was pretty predictable.

 

tl;dr - Proportional Representation is a better form of democracy that the US does not but SHOULD have, and the Republican majority in congress will just make Obama even more of a "lame duck."

Edited November 5, 2014 by Athanasios

[elsuper]

A government that is between both parties,

 

 

And what is Obama doing? Please tell me... Tell me so I can know. I can promise you that he hasn't done anything, but I'm all ears for what you're gonna say.

 

"Bipartisan" is probably what you're looking for.

 

Funny that when I started to google "what is being done about..." the first two suggestions were ISIS and ebola.

 

On Ebola (from cdc.gov):

 

 

What is CDC doing in the U.S. about the outbreak in West Africa?

CDC has activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to help coordinate technical assistance and control activities with partners. CDC has deployed several teams of public health experts to the West Africa region and plans to send additional public health experts to the affected countries to expand current response activities.

If an ill traveler arrives in the U.S., CDC has protocols in place to protect against further spread of disease. These protocols include having airline crew notify CDC of ill travelers on a plane before arrival, evaluation of ill travelers, and isolation and transport to a medical facility if needed. CDC, along with Customs & Border Patrol, has also provided guidance to airlines for managing ill passengers and crew and for disinfecting aircraft. CDC has issued a Health Alert Notice reminding U.S. healthcare workers about the importance of taking steps to prevent the spread of this virus, how to test and isolate patients with suspected cases, and how to protect themselves from infection.

Travelers What is being done to prevent ill travelers in West Africa from getting on a plane? In West Africa

CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ) is working with airlines, airports, and ministries of health to provide technical assistance for the development of exit screening and travel restrictions in the affected areas. This includes:

• Assessing the ability of Ebola-affected countries and airports to conduct exit screening,
• Assisting with development of exit screening protocols,
• Training staff on exit screening protocols and appropriate PPE use, and
• Training in-country staff to provide future trainings.

During Travel

CDC works with international public health organizations, other federal agencies, and the travel industry to identify sick travelers arriving in the United States and take public health actions to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Airlines are required to report any deaths onboard or ill travelers meeting certain criteria to CDC before arriving into the United States, and CDC and its partners determine whether any public health action is needed. If a traveler is infectious or exhibiting symptoms during or after a flight, CDC will conduct an investigation of exposed travelers and work with the airline, federal partners, and state and local health departments to notify them and take any necessary public health action. When CDC receives a report of an ill traveler on a cruise or cargo ship, CDC officials work with the shipping line to make an assessment of public health risk and to coordinate any necessary response.

In the United States

CDC has staff working 24/7 at 20 Border Health field offices located in international airports and land borders. On October 27, CDC’s public health authorities began active post-arrival monitoring of travelers whose travel originates in Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea. These travelers are now arriving to the United States at one of five airports where entry screening is being conducted by Customs and Border Protection and CDC.  Active post-arrival monitoring means that travelers without febrile illness or symptoms consistent with Ebola will be followed up daily by state and local health departments for 21 days from the date of their departure from West Africa. CDC staff are ready 24/7 to investigate cases of ill travelers on planes and ships entering the United States.

CDC works with partners at all ports of entry into the United States to help prevent infectious diseases from being introduced and spread in the United States. CDC works with Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, state and local health departments, and local Emergency Medical Services staff.

Relatively few of the approximately 350 million travelers who enter the United States each year come from these countries. Most people who become infected with Ebola are those who live with or care for people who have already caught the disease and are showing symptoms.

 

 

Re: ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/iraqi-kurds-reinforce-kobani-u-s-planes-pound-isis-targets-n239136 (from a few days ago)

 

Not saying its enough, but its not accurate to say nothing is being done.

[Ayayay]

-snip-

We have a First-past-the-post system. It exists because we are a federalized government. Getting rid of it would infringe on state rights which some people care about.

[Athanasios]

We have a First-past-the-post system. It exists because we are a federalized government. Getting rid of it would infringe on state rights which some people care about.

That's what I referred to with FPTP, like I said I don't think it would be possible to radically change the constitution enough to allow for PR, and if FPTP is what the people want, then that's what they should get.

 

That said, in heterogenous societies PR does a much better job of representing a diverse population. As the 320Mish people of America are pretty diverse, I personally think that we should have a PR system.

 

On the issue of federalism, please correct me if I'm wrong but countries like Germany have a Federalist system and a PR election process, so the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

But you are right, changing the constitution that heavily is pretty much impossible, but I still like to bring up PR because I personally believe that it's a better system.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Athanasios

[Donald Sterling]

And everyone thought that nothing could get done before.  Then again getting nothing done is probably better than getting things done with the wrong party in control. 



Why do you care a bout this Morgan?  You said in another thread "I'm Canadian", so how would you even know that this happened?


 

Edited November 5, 2014 by Otto von Bismarck

[naTia]

To say more about the flaws of the current political system, voting is based on who has the most votes, not necessarily the majority. As a main candidate, either democrat or republican, you want the "moderate", generally an independent, to be closer to your main opponent, the other party. This is because if the moderate gains more moderate voters from you contender's party and less from you, you have a higher chance of winning. Because of this, in a close race, the majority never wins.

 

For example, if you are a democrat and an independent in the race is more conservative, moderately conservative voters will be more likely to vote the independent than moderately liberal voters will. So, even if the voters are split 51/49 between you and the republican opponent, the votes might go 47/4/49 for the republican, the independent, and you, respectively. In this scenario, the minority wins, even though more people would rather the republican over you.

 

The problem this points out is although we are representing multiple parties, we are not doing it in a fair logistical manner. I am not suggesting we get rid of anyone except for the republican and democratic candidates. What I wish would happen is more like what Athanasios said in that we get rid of the two party system, and instead represent everyone's views. Notice, I wish.

[Shellhound]

Personally I don't believe who controls what in Congress is that big of an issue. At the end of the day, red or blue, a politician is still a politician.

[Shellhound]

Since Obama won't do anything about ISIS or Ebola, That really trashed him and made his approval rating plummet. We need an Independent Government; Independent Commander-In-Chief, Independent Senate, Independent House, Independent Congress

Oh no, 4 people in the US. have/had Ebola. Time to freak the !@#$ out and blame the President for not stopping this disease that has infected mill... thous... ten... 4 people in the US.

[elsuper]

Since 2010, any legislation that came to Obama's desk had to have been passed by a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, which was very little because it's hard to get 200+ Republicans to agree with 50+ senate democrats (nevermind before they changed the filibuster rules, when you also needed 40+ senate Republicans on board). Now, all legislation that comes out of Congress will be entirely Republican, and unless Obama wants to be remembered as the "veto everything" president, he will cave and sign at least some of it. His recent rhetoric, for what it's worth, indicates that he is open to compromise.

 

I expect Washington to do more things in the next 2 years than it has in the last 4; not necessarily good things, but things nonetheless.

[naTia]

the "veto everything" president

Barack "Tiberius" Obama, anyone?

[Aisha Greyjoy]

What does everybody think of the Republicans winning the house and senate?

More people voted for Democrats.  But Republicans won.  An interesting political system where the party with more votes loses the election(s).

[Athanasios]

Barack "Tiberius" Obama, anyone?

 

Don't bring up the Gracchus brothers, I cri evrytiem. :'(

[Grillick]

More people voted for Democrats.  But Republicans won.  An interesting political system where the party with more votes loses the election(s).

That's FPTP single-seat districts for you.

 

Not to mention a system that lets legislators pick their electorate, rather than the other way around.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Grillick

[Willam von Waldreich]

This is why a bi party system is so inefficient, there needs to be a valid third party that needs to be voted into office so maybe things can get done. But history has proven that in "most" circumstances that a Republican Government will focus primarily on Foreign Affairs and less on Internal Affairs. Democratic Governments focus more on Internal Affairs and less on Foreign Affairs...however as we have seen recently...the mold has been broken...

[Ayayay]

This is why a bi party system is so inefficient, there needs to be a valid third party that needs to be voted into office so maybe things can get done. But history has proven that in "most" circumstances that a Republican Government will focus primarily on Foreign Affairs and less on Internal Affairs. Democratic Governments focus more on Internal Affairs and less on Foreign Affairs...however as we have seen recently...the mold has been broken...

Two things

First off, so long as we remain a First-past-the-post sytem there won't be any real third party

Second, the president has almost always had near full control of Foreign Affairs with few exceptions, congress has always been more of a show when it came to that and only a handful of times has congress ever gone out of its way to block a presidents FA moves

Edited November 7, 2014 by underlordgc

[elsuper]

Two things

First off, so long as we remain a First-past-the-post sytem there won't be any real third party

Second, the president has almost always had near full control of Foreign Affairs with few exceptions, congress has always been more of a show when it came to that and only a handful of times has congress ever gone out of its way to block a presidents FA moves

 

I think you're right, but I took what he said as referring to Republican and Democratic presidencies specifically.

[Ayayay]

I think you're right, but I took what he said as referring to Republican and Democratic presidencies specifically.

Oh, perhaps. However the Democratic and Republican parties have switched a few times when it comes to which party is liberal or conservative. In fact, I think there is a relevant XKCD somewhere...

 

Waits for Grillick to post a relevant XKCD comic

[Grillick]

Here you go my friend.

[Dolphman]

For the next two years you will hear "Why wont our Liberal President sign in these conservative bills!", expect this to be a 1 law at a time congress, with only agreements from both parties ever getting through.