I really don't understand how bills are passed in America

[Canuckistanian]

Here in Canada, a simple plurality ensures that a vote is passed, despite our multi-party system.

One would think that in a two-party system, a simple rule would exist for passing bills - e.g. Plurality, 2/3 majority, "50% +1" etc, etc.

Why is it so complicated? What is the reason for the filibuster rule? And why is it clung to so tenaciously?

[ixion]

1. here you go

:+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[Canuckistanian]

17. A blast from the past, thanks

I understand the PROCESS, but not the REASON.

[DonCoquixote]

18. The reason

Here is the real reason. It is not elegant, but it is the truth.

Keep in mind, the 13 colonies were always considered more independent than the Provinces were. Granted, I am not including Quebec in this example, because Quebec did not "agree" to become part of Canada in the same way other parts did (Heck, the Bloc Quebecois would say they never joined, but that's another essay.) In any case, States like Virginia and Massachusetts were founded by the crown as separate states, had different economies, and enough of a different culture that many were afraid that the larger states would just roll over the smaller ones. The people in smaller states wanted a means where they could put a halt to things if they felt they were getting the shaft, thus the Senate was formed, where every state had two Senators that had power no congressman had. That is why Senators can cause a lot of havoc, holding up things.

Now, admittedly, there is good and bad. People in California may hate the Senate because it gives the Southern states a lot of power. This system was designed, oddly enough, as a check against the Southern states, who WERE the big states back in 1776. On the OTHER hand, the same system that let people like Jesse Helms do so much harm is the same system that enables a Bernie Sanders, Al Franken or one like the late great Ted Kennedy, to stand right in front of the political machinery and say "WHOA!" when the nation is about to make a mistake.

Hope that helped.

[Canuckistanian]

20. That's the best explanation I've heard so far

Thanks for the lesson!
:hi:

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. Neither do 99% of Americans

:D

Civics used to be a staple in K-12 education. Even though I was afforded a civics education, the House/Senate rules are so complex that I learn something new every week. Watching the HCR process has been especially enlightening to me as I learned more about procedural rules than I can even say.

[Canuckistanian]

4. Especially the Senate

I don't understand why the filibuster process can actually kill a bill before it's actually voted on.

Shouldn't a democracy be allowed to actually vote on a proposal from a duly elected representative, if it's approved by the de facto party leader?

[Ruby the Liberal]

6. One would think.

The Senate is an odd beast. 2 Reps per state, regardless of population. It was set up to be a balance against mob rule (our House is represented based on population) as a check.

Their rules are off the charts complex.

Bob Byrd (D-West Virginia) is widely respected as the one who knows the rules cold, but he is 92 and in ill health.

[Posteritatis]

10. Remember that Canada has a fusion of powers system instead of a seperation

Obama may be the highest-ranking member of his party for all practical purposes, but he has very little constitutional authority with regard to what he can do about (or to) the legislature. By comparison, a Canadian or British prime minister has vastly more power, because they effectively sit at the top of both the legislative and executive branches.

[Canuckistanian]

12. That's true

The Prime Minister takes on many hats. Absolute leader of the party, Chief Executive and also local representative.

It's a different dynamic.

[Posteritatis]

14. Attitudes towards the idea of government factor into it as well

Think of it in those terms - those who were framing the US system hadn't exactly had a wonderful time with their previous government, and were inclined not to trust a leadership that could get things done without too much fuss. Canada's own road to independence was more peaceful, drawn out and, well, boring, and as a result we're more comfortable with the idea of a relatively powerful central government, as we have less of a history of being badly burned by them. (We were also reacting to the Civil War, which was seen as the effect of an insufficiently powerful one.)

Just sort of interesting how the US is about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," while Canada's based more on "peace, order, and good government." ("Choose any two.")

[walldude]

9. Yeah but you gotta admit they are getting quite the education now... n/t

[Captain Hilts]

15. I've taught Am Govt. and have a poli sci phd but would NEVER claim to completely understand

the ins and outs of getting bills passed.

[Canuckistanian]

16. Simplicity doesn't seem to be a goal

I understand the necessity to make minority views matter, BUT...

The system seem to be set up so that INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTATIVES' views can stop whole processes. And that ONE INDIVIDUAL does not need to prove that they have any backing from their constituents.

In times past, there was at least a charade that a majority of constituents "demanded" action. Now, that requirement seems to have disappeared. Reps no longer seem to be concerned with local attitudes.

I'm sure Connecticut residents overwhelmingly disapprove of Lieberman's actions, for example. But he still claims to represent their views. I say there should be some mechanism for him to prove that he has their support.

[hootinholler]

21. There is, it's called the election

It sucks when you have a rogue like Lieberman who was actually elected by mostly republicans and unaware democrats.

-Hoot

[Odin2005]

3. The US is like the Roman Republic, lawmaking is like a Rube Goldberg machine...

...of inane traditional rules and prerogatives.

[Canuckistanian]

8. And then there's this "nuclear option" thing

When the GOP was threatening the "nuclear option", which would have ended a filibuster with a majority (instead of 60 votes) , I thought, "what's so terrible about that"?. What's the magic of the number 60? It's WAY beyond a supermajority.

I know that it was a real threat, given the makeup of the Senate back then.

I'd just like to know why it isn't considered as a valid improvement of the Senate process.

[kedrys]

5. My admittedly limited understanding of it is

that is was engineered from the get-go to NOT work, so the f*cknozzles in power couldn't do any real damage. Well, we all know how well that little theory turned out.

[Canuckistanian]

11. So it ENCOURAGES horse-trading?

And thus ensures that pure policy could NEVER be passed? Intriguing.

[Posteritatis]

13. That's part of it, yeah

Remember the situation that the US political system came about as a result of in the first place; those who established the government had just finished a by-the-time's-standards terrible war against what they perceived as a tyrannical, overpowered system, and so they ran up a structure that was designed to make it as difficult as possible for the American government to repeat the cycle.

The whole system's rather small-C conservative that way; it isn't a fan of sudden, dramatic change because that can often lead to Bad Things(tm), so it's set up to make it very hard to enact said change without a lot of noise being raised on the way. That's what's going on right now with the health reform legislation; I'm very much a fan of it happening in the US, but the current pace of things is a sign that the system is working as designed.

[demosincebirth]

7. Its not a true democracy...no matter what people believe.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Well, first it starts with lobbyists and is followed by

LOTS and LOTS of money. Then they call in the sheep, er, I mean, partisans to go forth and man (or woman) the front lines to defend the defenseless long enough for them to pass whatever legislation the monied interests have written.

[AngryAmish]

22. Just like you have to do the bidding of the Queen, we have our own rules

Representative republic, not a parliamentary monarchy.