Does this plan make sense? v3 - eviltoast
    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 年前

      Being able to kill a bill without having the votes to vote it down by either talking for a while or just threatening to talk for a while seems fine to you?

      It’s a procedural loophole that allows the minority party to tacitly veto legislation that doesn’t have a supermajority.

      • MrDrProfKelev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 年前

        Yes, that’s the point. Otherwise the majority can pass any legislation they want. What would be the purpose of the minority if they can’t block anything the majority wants to do?

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 年前

          What.

          In most democratic systems, the whole point is that you vote, and the majority wins. That’s the point of voting.

          A loophole where one side can just block voting breaks the whole thing.

          That’s just a baffling position.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 年前

      It’s become too easy. It no longer involves actually standing on the floor of the senate and talking. It’s a purely procedural thing now. OP should have said “bring back the talking filibuster”.

      • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        No, I stand firm, abolish the filibuster. Enforce strict talking time limits. It is wasting American tax payer time and money with bullshit nonsense, and gives individual representatives too much power.