I voted for, then voted against
I’ve occasionally have a mild interest in how other governments handle their legislative requirements. Mostly, this interest is sparked by news commentators showing videos of Far East countries where fist fights break out among opposing political groups. My swiss cheese memory fails me at the moment in recalling the country, but I want to say it was a Malaysia.
The states have always prided itself as the bastion for democratic ideals. We have always claimed to be the blueprint for how true democracies should be set up. Over the years I’ve had pause to consider if this is true.
Our political system is truly divided between the 2 parties, Republicans and Democrats. Any other third party has virtually no chance to effect any sort of social or political change. Sure, grass root movements have been known to effect some change. But when you think about it, it wasn’t due to its political representation in our legislature. It was because the social conscience of the nation was changed enough that pressure was placed upon one or both of the two parties’ representatives to effect that change.
The basic tenant of our democracy was to allow a voice to the minority viewpoint and not allow the majority to step over the rights of the minority. Most of the world’s democracies do this much better than the states. A legislative body is voted in with a variety of political groups being represented. At that point, the political groups bind together to form a coalition of ideals and principles and elect a prime minister to represent them. The government, led by the prime minister, then has to represent all parties in his coalition or face a revolt and possible removal if the coalition falls apart.
This is a far superior system than the current US model, where the party in power may have polar opposite agendas than the minority party. Only one viewpoint’s agenda will be implemented, disenfranchising the minority.
During the last election, much was made of Kerry’s voting record of voting for something then voting against. The electorate likes very simple ideas when trying to characterize a candidate. This appeared to be someone who really couldn’t make up their mind on issues. And Kerry failed when it came to a sufficient response.
Many legislators are faced with this dilemma. The process of creating a law requires a bill to be passed in both the house and the senate. The language of the legislation is never word for word identical, which is a requirement. To iron out the differences in language, a conference committee of representatives from both houses meet to work out the differences in the bill and bring back the compromises to both houses for a vote. The idea is that there should be minor changes to the bill, and the original nature of the bill should remain very close to the original language voted on and approved by that branch of the legislature. Sounds perfectly logical, right? That’s not what is happening.
Pieces of legislation go through the proper process of being debated and amended on the floor of the house and senate, with all parties able to have their say. If alliances are required to pass a bill, the language of one party is softened in order to get approval of the other. Sounds lovely, right? This is how our political system should work. Unfortunately, it isn’t.
Currently, one political party controls the assignment of representatives to the conference committee that is responsible for adjusting the language of the bill between the two houses. What they are doing is actually completely rewriting the bill and ignoring the voice of the minority party. When the bill leaves committee, it may have virtually no similarity to the original bill. The bill is then brought back to the floor and no debate or amendments are possible. Legislators will only be able to do a straight up and down Yes or No vote. If this was an important bill that had received lots of attention, then voting No could be very difficult to explain to your constituents. How could you vote against a child safety bill named “The Child Predator” law when in fact it has suddenly morphed into a new energy policy and all language dealing with child safety has been removed?
It’s difficult to damn the Republicans for abusing the rules of the political process when the truth is the Democrats are angry they didn’t think of it first. Both parties have become so polarized, the average, moderate American is no longer being represented. We are living in an age that will be talked about in history books for generations. An age of abuse of policy and misrepresentation to the general populace. I shudder to think of the face of the United States after this administration. And I shudder at the chaos that will occur when the Democrats regain control and start stripping out all the changes that have been put in place.
I am embarrassed when our political system is touted as the blueprint for democracy. It isn’t, and never will be. But I understand why it is. It is because people are associating economic and military supremacy to the success of a democratic state. We are the world’s largest economy and have the largest standing army, that must mean our version of democracy is the best. But economic success and military power is not reliant upon democratic ideals. One has only to look at China.
Mizike
The states have always prided itself as the bastion for democratic ideals. We have always claimed to be the blueprint for how true democracies should be set up. Over the years I’ve had pause to consider if this is true.
Our political system is truly divided between the 2 parties, Republicans and Democrats. Any other third party has virtually no chance to effect any sort of social or political change. Sure, grass root movements have been known to effect some change. But when you think about it, it wasn’t due to its political representation in our legislature. It was because the social conscience of the nation was changed enough that pressure was placed upon one or both of the two parties’ representatives to effect that change.
The basic tenant of our democracy was to allow a voice to the minority viewpoint and not allow the majority to step over the rights of the minority. Most of the world’s democracies do this much better than the states. A legislative body is voted in with a variety of political groups being represented. At that point, the political groups bind together to form a coalition of ideals and principles and elect a prime minister to represent them. The government, led by the prime minister, then has to represent all parties in his coalition or face a revolt and possible removal if the coalition falls apart.
This is a far superior system than the current US model, where the party in power may have polar opposite agendas than the minority party. Only one viewpoint’s agenda will be implemented, disenfranchising the minority.
During the last election, much was made of Kerry’s voting record of voting for something then voting against. The electorate likes very simple ideas when trying to characterize a candidate. This appeared to be someone who really couldn’t make up their mind on issues. And Kerry failed when it came to a sufficient response.
Many legislators are faced with this dilemma. The process of creating a law requires a bill to be passed in both the house and the senate. The language of the legislation is never word for word identical, which is a requirement. To iron out the differences in language, a conference committee of representatives from both houses meet to work out the differences in the bill and bring back the compromises to both houses for a vote. The idea is that there should be minor changes to the bill, and the original nature of the bill should remain very close to the original language voted on and approved by that branch of the legislature. Sounds perfectly logical, right? That’s not what is happening.
Pieces of legislation go through the proper process of being debated and amended on the floor of the house and senate, with all parties able to have their say. If alliances are required to pass a bill, the language of one party is softened in order to get approval of the other. Sounds lovely, right? This is how our political system should work. Unfortunately, it isn’t.
Currently, one political party controls the assignment of representatives to the conference committee that is responsible for adjusting the language of the bill between the two houses. What they are doing is actually completely rewriting the bill and ignoring the voice of the minority party. When the bill leaves committee, it may have virtually no similarity to the original bill. The bill is then brought back to the floor and no debate or amendments are possible. Legislators will only be able to do a straight up and down Yes or No vote. If this was an important bill that had received lots of attention, then voting No could be very difficult to explain to your constituents. How could you vote against a child safety bill named “The Child Predator” law when in fact it has suddenly morphed into a new energy policy and all language dealing with child safety has been removed?
It’s difficult to damn the Republicans for abusing the rules of the political process when the truth is the Democrats are angry they didn’t think of it first. Both parties have become so polarized, the average, moderate American is no longer being represented. We are living in an age that will be talked about in history books for generations. An age of abuse of policy and misrepresentation to the general populace. I shudder to think of the face of the United States after this administration. And I shudder at the chaos that will occur when the Democrats regain control and start stripping out all the changes that have been put in place.
I am embarrassed when our political system is touted as the blueprint for democracy. It isn’t, and never will be. But I understand why it is. It is because people are associating economic and military supremacy to the success of a democratic state. We are the world’s largest economy and have the largest standing army, that must mean our version of democracy is the best. But economic success and military power is not reliant upon democratic ideals. One has only to look at China.
Mizike
posted by Mizike at 11:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home