politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There really needs to be some way for the minority party to step in and do the work if the majority cannot function.
In Canada we call an election.
The problem is that the American system isn't parliamentary. There isn't a button to push to reset Congress.
Well, you might say that is one of the problems.
Well, there might be one button...
Or some form of trigger.
0000 0000 dammit!
0000 0001 dammit!
0000...
4545 4545 oh shit
You got it right the first time unless they've changed the codes since the cold war
i'd think they changed it after it became public knowledge that you could launch nukes by mashing 0 a lot (that is putting way more faith in government than it deserves, i know), and i used the style of hacking called "guess what that dipshit would put in as his password"
Like in a bowling alley, when the ball doesn't trip the sensor and the pins don't reset...canada has that for government?
I want one!
Pretty much. If the current party in power is not able to gain sufficient support for confidence motions (there are a number of things that qualify as a confidence motion, the budget being a big one) Then the Governor General (the official representative of the King / Queen) can offer control to another party if they ARE able to gather that support, or simply call an election.
Technically the (currently King) is our head of state, but for most functions our Prime Minister fills that role. The current government losing confidence of parliament is one of the functions where the King still holds de facto power in addition to de jure power.
Note that while they are titles held by the same person, the titles of King of Canada and King of the United Kingdom are legally distinct, and while referring to his role in Canadian governance, it is appropriate to refer to Charles III as King of Canada specifically, and inappropriate to use his other titles in that context. Mostly because the King of the United Kingdom has no role in our government, but the King of Canada does.
canada chucks another ball down the lane?
(is joke i know you press the button and wait for the employee to walk down the gutters and kick the pin resetter and then run away because kicking pin resetters has killed a lot of people but it's how you get them to work)
It's called a "confidence vote". It's not every bill, and I forget what makes it confidential, but if budgets and big things don't get passed parliament has no confidence in the government and an election happens. The two states of governance are A: a majority government where the ruling party has enough votes to pass anything they like. And B: a minority government that would have to make concessions and entice the other parties to vote with them. Minority governments are better IMO because they theoretically represent more people.
Iirc, it's when the governing party proposes a bill and it fails to pass, it triggers a vote of confidence, and if that vote goes against them, then there's an election. Or the governing party can ask the governer general (represents the king... Yeah, I know) to call an election.
One thing I've never understood: y'all declare you have no confidence in the government but you have enough confidence to trust it to run a fair election?
It's not the citizens having no confidence in the government, it's the other members of parliament. If the government cannot get a majority of MPs to support their bill, they have lost the confidence of parliament, which will trigger and election (or technically could have the GG assign government to another party who DOES have the confidence of parliament, though to my knowledge that has never happened, but it is a tool in their toolbox).
Our federal elections are run by Elections Canada, which reports to parliament as a whole, not to the Government of Canada. It is a non-partisan agency. We have a similar setup in the provinces with each having their own provincial election agency. I am unsure how it is handled in the territories.
Elections are held by Elections Canada, not the governing parties. There are constitutional laws that must be followed for elections, such as spending, how long campaigns last for, how/where voting stations are covered, etc.
Just another way the US is an Alpha Democracy. (as in, still full of bugs that got fixed in later versions.) At least I live in California which does a great job on elections.
The government doesn't run the election, especially if they are not in absolute majority
There are many layers and interpretations of confidence there that you mix up. I'm assuming this works somewhat like where I live. Its the confidence that the government is in a functional state/working somewhat efficient vs the confidence of fair elections. There are mamy ways where parties can essentially block progress or the government in general. That's somewhat fine and can be an important instrument to use (especially when in the opposition). But that doesn't necessarily mean that the people causing it want to get rid of fair and free elections. Some kind of "shutdowns" and other grind locks can be very detrimental to a government and there need to be a mechanic to be able to solve them. In this case: We have no confidence the current parliament with the current distribution of seats is working as it should be. We tried everything, we need to restart.
Since it's a quite drastic process, it's not something invoked lightly.
That's a good answer. I was just going to quote Elections Canada: "Elections Canada is the independent, non-partisan agency responsible for conducting federal elections and referendums."
Under the current circumstances, with an administration that's actively working to restrict and gerrymander away the voting power of anyone who's not on their side, and firing many of the nonpartisan government employees who might get in their way by refusing to rig the process and results, I don't think we can have enough confidence in our government to call a vote of no confidence, even if it were in our Constitution.
It's a vote on something that the government must pass to keep control, such as a budget; if they don't get the votes, then it's "no confidence in this government" therefore now the GG calls the rest of the leaders in to try to form another government. If that fails, then the GG forces an election. Elections are entirely separate from governance and changing the rules is very difficult so it doesn't get fucked up easily.
We have rules too, but the despot in chargge tramples on the rules, and his toadies in Congress and on the Supreme Court let him. He already had Musk and his DOGE goons get rid of most of the career government workers who normally carry out the rules. Elections are supposed to be run by the various states, and that's given us hope for changing control of Congress at the midterms in November, but he is trying to wrest control of the whole election process.
In any other shithole country with these problems, the world would deploy UN observers to help keep your elections fair. I think it's going to have to get worse to get better.
The moment a bill doesnt pass it instantly triggers our government dissolving and a new election, up here.
They can oust the speaker with a very small number of defections that would achieve a majority. There's no motivation for the minority factions within the majority to do so though - the only chance they have of passing their hardline agenda is by refusing to give the majority the ability to do anything. This isn't a problem if you have a much larger majority but they're barely holding onto the title right now.
Unfortunately, the rebels are on the far right. They may vote to oust Johnson, but they’ll never vote to give Jeffries or any other Democrat the speakership. We’d be back in the endless cycle of Speaker votes that brought Johnson into power.
Are there any examples of the majority party electing a Speaker from the opposing party?
Seems like a given that they wouldn't vote for Jeffries
The closest example seems to be Nathaniel Banks, in 1855. He was in the Know-Nothing party, which was a smaller third party of the time.
Exactly. Even if it's just a couple of republicans, there are enough who don't like Johnson that it could happen...
Then 12 or 15 votes later, the rpublicans look like morons...again.
Too bad establishment republicans have neither the spine, or the moral fortitude to not roll over and assume the position.
Republicans are conservatives, authoritarians, the most important thing for them is adherence to the group. If they valued anything else more, they wouldn't be Republicans.
There is. They can find enough willing defectors from the majority faction to become the majority themselves, vacate the chair and install someone else as speaker. If you're talking about a way for the minority to seize control of the chamber against the will of the majority, well, I challenge you to find a way to describe the rules for how that should work in a way that isn't easily gameable.
The problem is that would be extremely short lived, even if it succeeds. And it won’t succeed because from the perspective of most of the minority republicans, democrats are far, far, worse.
The Democrats could help put someone like Cassidy into the speakership. (But, you know, from the house.)
Someone who doesn't say they're running the protection program. Someone who will exercise the power of Congress as a co-equal branch of government. Someone who will stop ceding congressional power to Trump. Hell, maybe even someone who would help restore the independence of independent executive agencies.
Likely would be someone on the way out, but good enough for now. I feel like all that isn't asking for much, just the basic duty of the job.
yes, it's really hard to find common ground with a faction that believes as few people should have the right to vote as possible.
Honestly... Well regulated state militias were supposed to exist for a reason. The founding fathers weren't able to see the technology of the future but they were able to see the oppression of the future. They wrote the Constitution with their terms at their time. Modern politicians have chosen to abandon most aspects of the Constitution. But they were in there for a reason.
The founding fathers envisioned that every state, every community, any brotherhood or fellowship of men and or women would have a standing army that they could summon anytime to stop federal overreach, as well as the overreach of the corrupt and shiftless. that is the entire purpose of the second amendment.
The founders were, by a majority, against elections and wanted Presidents to be appointed by Congress. Americans care far too much about what those slave-owning shits intended. It was after all a quarter of a millennium ago.
So, like a... prime congressman? All the ~~ministers~~ congressmen vote in a Prime ~~Minister~~ Congressman to form the executive?
I agree with them entirely. The US is currently paralysed by a system where you need both a president and congress to agree before you can do anything, so if you have one opposed to the other then the entire government is basically useless and unable to reform anything until the president/balance of congress changes.
A parliamentary system avoids that problem by design - if the PM can't get enough votes from the parliament, then he doesn't have enough to "form a government" (I.e. become PM) in the first place. And if he ever loses majority support in parliament and thus can't pass any bills, then parliament can kick him out via a No Confidence vote with simple majority support, so that someone who does have majority support (or gains it via negotiating support from independents/minor parties) can become PM themselves and the government is able to function.
Switching to a parliamentary system would be the quickest and easiest method of preventing another situation like Obama's uselessness for most of his presidency because of a Republican-controlled senate.