Is there something wrong with majority rules?

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

 

[uscitizen]

It is what the constitution outlines.

 

[California Girl]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

 

[boedicca]

It is what the constitution outlines.

The Constitution outlines majority rule with protections for the minority.

Pure majority rule results in what Tocqueville very properly labelled "The Tyranny of the Majority:".

 

[ItHappens]

It depends.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah right go straight into adult sanitary products why don'tcha?

 

[L.K.Eder]

majority rule is totally evil, if you are in the minority.

burp

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

because we are used to you being full of shit?

Why mention only 2005?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

They understand the difference but the difference doesn't serve their political agendas and ideologies so they ignore it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

majority rule is totally evil, if you are in the minority.

burp

For me and others it always depends on what constitutes a majority. I think 51/49 is always a recipe for disaster or an unsound foundation. It doesn't always mean I think the 51 were wrong, only that as time goes by, the 51 needs to convince more of the 49 that they were right.

A simple majority is not the same things as a large majority or overwhelming majority. Nuance is needed. The very thing the neo anti-reconciliation folks are asking for now: nuance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is what the constitution outlines.

not really. not in all cases.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

No, actually in 2005 it was used for healthcare reform.

 

[emilynghiem]

Majority rule can either be used appropriately by consent of all parties, or abused to obstruct justice or deny due process and equal representation/protections of the law.

1. First, as long as the parties agree to use it, in deciding policy by vote, that is within the law. However, because of the bipartisan pressures for one candidate to win "all" rights to representation, there is more coercion, bullying, emotional manipulation of media perceptions, and censorship/restrictions so there is not truly free choice in most cases.

2. If parties DO NOT agree on policies, but have major political, religious or personal differences, it is in essence unlawful to abuse majority-rule to impose or oppress dissenters, which violates the right of all people, even minority opinions to equal protection and representation of interests. For differences, either reconciliable or not, I recommend:

A. mediation/conflict resolution - to decide on points of agreement, or to allow separate policies or options so that taxpayers do not have to fund programs against their beliefs
B. proportional representation - so that all parties and persons may participate as directly or indirectly as needed to guarantee their interests are included, in addition to making decisions by consensus so there is no bullying or unfair competition to override each other
C. judicial freedom for parties to choose which lawyers, mediators, and judges in their disputes or issues they agree will facilitate a consensual decision agreeable to all affected

NOTE: You can still meet the criteria of "majority-rule" by making decisions by consensus.
Or parties can agree to compromise on certain issues decided by vote or arbitration.

But where they do NOT agree to submit to majority-rule, I would require either consensus or separate policies/funding for separate programs or policies to prevent imposition.

With gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, immigration, etc. where people clearly do not agree and fear the equal protection of their values are at stake, those issues involving personal, political, or religious beliefs cannot be legislated against the will of persons affected without violating the spirit of the law based on consent and equal protections.

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Some reasons people do not defend a higher standard based on consensus decisions:
1. They don't believe consensus is possible, so they keep using majority-rule
2. They benefit from the system as is, so they have no motivation to reform it
a. Note 1: the current political system rewards people for crediting their party or candidate while attacking the opponents; so the idea of sharing credit for mutual solutions is foreign
b. Note 2: the system of scaring up votes and ratings by advertising crises that the candidate is needed to solve keeps people dependent on elected leaders to get the vote out
3. They don't practice it themselves, so they cannot demand the same of others

Eventually, by process of elimination or trial and error, all the problems that cannot be solved by majority-rule politics will be passed on to the people who can solve them.

So the responsibility for public and institutional reforms will fall on the people, the businesses, schools, charities, and nonprofits with the freedom to work cooperatively on effective solutions without interference by politics or popularity contests.

As for elected leaders, the ones with the vision to model govt programs and policies after private sector solutions may still be successful in using the current system of government.

Majority-rule may serve as a check to vote out bad policies, but forming good ones will come from people working cooperatively across political and economic lines and groups.

Party politics seems more a media game to sell ratings that obstructs democratic process.

 

[boedicca]

No, actually in 2005 it was used for healthcare reform.

No it wasn't. It was used to reduce Medicare spending, not to create Medicare itself.

 

[txlonghorn]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Difference.... 2005, it was used for budgetary items. 2010 they plan to use it for legislative purposes. Reconciliation was not designed for legislation.... according to the Senator who designed it.... A Democrat, btw.

Why is it that some of you seem unable to understand the difference?

they understand it...they are just ignoring it...like PAYGO

 

[DiamondDave]

Dante has reached the hard-to-reach Chris/rdean/sillybozo level of stupidity

 

[Contumacious]

It is what the constitution outlines.

The Constitution outlines majority rule with protections for the minority.

Pure majority rule results in what Tocqueville very properly labelled "The Tyranny of the Majority:".

Reeeeeally?

Identify the proviso by Article, section and clause.

.

 

[WillowTree]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

You really wanna go with the majority rules? Do heteros outnumber homos? do women outnumber men??

 

[boedicca]

Reeeeeally?

Identify the proviso by Article, section and clause.

.

It's in the design - it's why we have three branches of government. The design is intended to make it difficult to change the status quo based upon temporal popular whim.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many here agree with Senator Gregg?

Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, who has been warning Democrats not to attempt to use reconciliation for the health care legislation, famously defended the process when Republicans were using it in 2005. “Is there something wrong with majority rules?” Mr. Gregg asked. “I don’t think so.”

people here have very few principles they are willing to come out and defend

Obama condemned the use of reconciliation for policy changes

"Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes," then-Sen. Barack Obama said in December of 2005.

Barack Obama Opposed Reconciliation Before He Supported It - Peter Roff (usnews.com)

"The reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning," Obama said on the Senate floor during a debate over changes to the federal Temporary Aid to Needy Families program, adding that the use of reconciliation to deal with those changes meant that "A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt."

I've been trying to tell you people that ALL politicians are fucking hypocrites but you don't listen do you?