If you address gerrymandering, the Senate/House divide is less important (but still important).
Keep the Senate. Make filibusters back into what they were intended as, unlimited debate. You have to have someone in the chamber talking the entire time. The filibuster was intended to allow everyone to talk. It was not intended to hold up bills forever.
Make filibusters back into what they were intended as, unlimited debate.
hard, throbbing agree there. this thing where one congressmonster sends an email that says “I’m gonna filibuster this” and then everyone gets the rest of the day off for cocktails and footrubs is a gross perversion of what it was intended for.
My opinion is to make the filibuster a “break in case of emergency” that has actual tangible consequences. Conceptually it becomes something that any senator is allowed to do, but anyone who participates is removed from office regardless of the result of the vote and are barred from holding any office. For me, they are taking extreme action based on some equally extreme personal moral objection. That is valid and should be allowed, but actions have consequences and the consequence of imposing your personal morals on the governance of the people is that you no longer get to participate in that governance. You have to feel so strongly in your convictions that you are willing to sacrifice your entire political career to take the action.
If you address gerrymandering, the Senate/House divide is less important (but still important).
Keep the Senate. Make filibusters back into what they were intended as, unlimited debate. You have to have someone in the chamber talking the entire time. The filibuster was intended to allow everyone to talk. It was not intended to hold up bills forever.
hard, throbbing agree there. this thing where one congressmonster sends an email that says “I’m gonna filibuster this” and then everyone gets the rest of the day off for cocktails and footrubs is a gross perversion of what it was intended for.
My opinion is to make the filibuster a “break in case of emergency” that has actual tangible consequences. Conceptually it becomes something that any senator is allowed to do, but anyone who participates is removed from office regardless of the result of the vote and are barred from holding any office. For me, they are taking extreme action based on some equally extreme personal moral objection. That is valid and should be allowed, but actions have consequences and the consequence of imposing your personal morals on the governance of the people is that you no longer get to participate in that governance. You have to feel so strongly in your convictions that you are willing to sacrifice your entire political career to take the action.