The Pros And Cons Of The Filibuster

But because the minority loves this advantage they had, they would use filibuster to stop the passing of a filibuster ban bill. But when reelections happens and the minority now becomes the majority they decide to ban filibuster and the then majority not minority use the same method to stop them instead. This becomes a forever ending cycle of trying to use filibuster for their advantage but trying not to give opposing side the power to filibuster (Binder,

A filibuster is a tactic in the legislative process sometimes used in the US Senate by opponents of a bill to block its passage. In the Senate use their unique right to unlimited debate as a way to prevent or delay the Senate from ever voting on a bill. Senator’s work together can practically debate forever, tying up the legislative agenda until the proponents of a bill finally give up their battle. Filibusters are not allowed in the House of Representatives because House rules limit the time allowed for debate on bills. In 2013 because of Democratic frustration about filibusters of judicial and executive branch nominees the filibuster’s rules changed. The number of votes required to end debate on those types of nominations has now been reduced

Although they are essential to our government, there are potential problems which includes corruption, inefficiencies and equal representation. Individuals are not generally happy with the time span engaged with passing a law as well as the halt Congress put on some issues. The framers of the Constitution created a bicameral legislative in order to compromise at the constitutional convention between the large

These arguments present different perspectives, however, they do have agreements amongst them. Overall, Mayhew presents an argument that is believable and shows the truth of members of the US Congress. Mayhew speaks about the behavior

The main reason why the Framers didn’t succeed in their final compromise is because it was too difficult to make all the delegates (who were basically competing) agree with each other, so numerous issues were ignored and most plans were severely compromised. An example of this is the debate between larger and smaller states over their representation in the newly proposed Senate. Two solutions were significantly favored: the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan. The smaller states were in favor of the New Jersey Plan, which would enforce each state to send the same number of representatives to Congress. The larger states supported the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state’s population. Eventually, an agreement between the states was made known as the Great Compromise. The Great Compromise combined the New

Back in 1788, the larger states were happier with their representation in the House. They had more population and where entitled to more reps. The representation in the Senate made the small states happier because each state was given the same amount. It ensured all states had equal say. The most important document, written in 1788, guarded against the possibility of an individual or group from getting too much power.

Attempting to enact significant legislation requires Congress and the White House to compromise and anticipate what others will approve of and pass. When a bill successfully passes both houses of Congress, which has become increasingly difficult due to party polarization and radical groups within the House of Representatives and the Senate, it then goes to the president for signing. This is a lengthy process, and in order for groups of people with opposing views to settle in agreement on a measure, a great deal of negotiation is often required. This can result in a piece of legislation that is a compromised, diluted version of its original form that is not an effective solution to the initial problem. Vague, weak legislation often necessitates further action by the other two branches of government in order to interpret and execute it properly.

The founders wanted the Senate to view the impact of their decisions at a national level. They wanted the senate to take a methodical approach to voting. Members of the senate remain in office on six-year terms, much longer then their House of Representative counter parts. The idea behind a six-year term is to provide a form of barrier from the people; this allowed the senate to make long-term decisions rather then, what is developing now. Members of the Senate are also required to be a minimum 30 years of age, as opposed to the 25 years of age for House members.

All over Canada, Canadians have different views as for what should we do about the Senate .Yes, the Senate has some important qualities but what we do not need the Senate for today is one of its original purposes, to represent the interests of the provinces in the federal legislative policy process. For example, people like “Ralph Goodale, who fought hard for Saskatchewan’s interest around the Cabinet table for more than a dozen years. John Baird, the regional minister for Eastern Ontario today,”(Eugene Lang) is a current equivalent. The provincial interest is taken care of by regional ministers in a way that no senator or group of senators could hope to

The Two-Party system soon controlled the decisions of all Americans. This is all this country has ever known, and if it were to every drastically change, our country would spin into ultimate turmoil. This system works

It allows them to use tactics such as packing and cracking which can have a tremendous impact on elections. Packing is when politicians draw out district maps for each party based on population. Packing can swing the vote because the population of one party could out weight the population of the minority party within the same district, causing the entire district to swing with the majority. Voters feel that the other tactic, cracking, gives them a disadvantage because the political parties are being spread out between multiple districts which causes one district to have the majority party in multiple areas (King, Elizabeth). When the politicians of the party in power have drawn out the voters’ map, they maintain power over the lines of the map.

But why wouldn’t they fix that? Gridlock is definitely not productive, but it does force compromise. It also forces members of government to take time and consider both sides of the disagreement. Gridlock also stops the government from making quick decisions. Instead of having legislation just pass bills, gridlock offers more of a challenge to pass bills and a slower process.

The debate for the proposals of the Constitution lasted a long period of time because the States did not agree with the proposals. Compromise was needed in this situation because the Convention would have taken longer than expected. With compromise, the structure of the national legislature was finally formed after months of debates. The plan was adopted: five states agreed, four states disagreed, and two states did not vote. With Rhode Island’s vote, the debates no longer had to to continue.

It recruits former federal employees to return as lobbyists and consultants. With officials spinning in and out of the public and private sections of society, so does power, certain privileges, and money. This effects the electoral process by changing the way people think. Instead of thinking and acting towards the needs of the people, they focus on the needs of their next employer and disregard the rest.

However, abolishing the Senate may not be the best for Canada in the end, so another argument is to reform the Senate. The best plan at the moment to reform the Senate is the Triple E plan, as it would make it so that the Senators are elected, each province is represented equally, making the Senate more effective. If we were to abolish the Senate the only way to do so would be by a constitutional amendment backed by at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, or one with unanimous provincial