Who thinks a supermajority is a good thing?

@Taskr36 (13926)
United States
January 24, 2010 10:19pm CST
I ask this because I want to see who, on both sides, would want such a thing. I have truly been disgusted by the behavior of the democrats in congress. I've watched them tell voters what they want instead of listening to what voters want. I've watched them tell voters that their voices mean nothing. I've watched them shut out 40% of the men and women representing US the voters. What's worse than their behavior? The way many democrats in this country have encouraged it, excused it, and/or cheered for it. I've even seen people on forums say "Republicans shouldn't have a voice, they lost!" and "Democrats were forced to shut out Republicans." Rather than seek the opinions and support of the entire legislative branch, bills have been written for and by only one side and support has only been sought by that side. If a few stragglers exist, you don't need to reevaluate the bill, just bribe the few who have concerns. Now a state that hasn't elected a Republican to the senate in over 40 years has done just that to end the elitist, exclusionary behavior in congress. It is clear now that the behavior shown by congress over the last year is exactly what most voters don't want. What about you? Do you want a supermajority? This isn't just a question for democrats. Do Republicans on this forum think congress would be good if republicans had a supermajority?
1 person likes this
11 responses
@RobtheRock (2485)
• United States
26 Jan 10
I agree with the first two posters I've read so far. Supermajority isn't helping the Democrats at all or they'd have the health care reform bill passed by now. I'm a liberal in some ways but am upset at how abortion is one of the barriers in the way. And this is the problem with some of the Obama haters, they don't see how he is not as liberal as many think he is. Liberals are mad at him and conservatives hate him. Thus, within this so called supermajority are the conservatives versus the liberals who are tearing the party apart.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27162)
• United States
26 Jan 10
First of all, Rob, welcome to myLot. I hope you like it here and I'm sure you'll be an excellent addition here. It appears like you and I agree on quite a bit. I think you're so right about President Obama. He really can't win as long as he's being pulled in both directions as he is. How can one group of people think someone is "radically liberal" while another thinks he's moved too far to the right! Annie
• United States
29 Jan 10
Thanks anniepa. It sort of reminds me of when I lived in Ann Arbor. Basically, the city is predominately liberal when it comes to ideas although it seems to be conservative in terms of how people deal with money. That's how it seems to me. I worked at the Ann Arbor News. It was definitely liberal in many areas. The editorials leaned to the left of center. I had a friend who was a die hard Communist. He thought the newspaper was too far to the right. I've heard people say the paper was too far to the left. Although I felt it leaned a little to the left, I also saw some leaning to the right. I'd say it was a little left of center depending on the circumstances since it's in a town filled with intellectuals.
• United States
25 Jan 10
I do really think it is a good thing in the long term. Both parties have complained about it when they have had power, but not absolute power, and have talked about changing it, but no one has yet. I was really wondering what was going to happen when republicans wanted to change the laws in 2005, but they never fully were able to do it. Taskr, both parties have told their voters what they wanted, and claimed a "mandate" in doing so. Don't you remember when republicans controlled the entire government and then spent every dime they could find, and when they ran out of money, they just borrowed some from China. The vast majority of republicans didn't want that, but they didn't say anything about it because they voted for them. I am sure that the republicans want democrats to have a super majority, but you have to remember that what comes around goes around, and politics runs in cycles, if you change the rules to help you today, it will hurt you tomorrow.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
26 Jan 10
So what I'm getting is that you believe it's good since it works like a see saw. Is that correct? Republicans had majorities, but they didn't have complete control as the democrats did. Democrat could, and did, filibuster whenever they liked. Sometimes they did it just because not because they opposed what was going on, but just because they didn't like Bush as with their constant filibustering of his judicial nominees. Personally, I don't want either party to have a super majority. Government runs better when powers are kept in check. "if you change the rules to help you today, it will hurt you tomorrow." I pointed that out in another thread telling democrats that if they really want to give the government control over their healthcare, they should remember that by the time government health care goes into effect republicans will be the ones controlling it.
@poingly (606)
• United States
25 Jan 10
The Democrats have trouble agreeing amongst themselves on anything (this is, in part, related to HOW they got that super majority)--this means that they can never really do anything with that super majority, because there is always going to be a few that disagree with the issue at hand. There is a reasonable argument that Republicans are more united--which is true to some degree--though the question is why. To be fair, I have heard the hoots (on other boards I was on at the time) the other way that "Democrats shouldn't have a voice" when Republicans only had a simple majority, so go figure. I also think it's impossible to say what most voters do or do not want from a special election in the state of Massachusetts. Doesn't that say more about what the state of Massachusetts wants? Anyway, that being said, I don't think a super majority is good. It sets up an expectation that just isn't there. Both sides are not showing much comprise here. Though health care is the current debate--there were bills earlier in the year that were sought to include Republicans, with elements to appease them, and they STILL voted against them. Both sides are being petty, but is this because of the super majority? I'm not so sure....
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27162)
• United States
25 Jan 10
I think the term "supermajority" is a misnomer, at least in regards to what the Democrats in the Senate. The Democrats aren't a party where in someone says sit, they all sit and when someone says walks, they all walk! They don't tow the party line because there's no party line to tow, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it makes it easy for them to be attacked at a time like this. You know we disagree on this and I hope we can RESPECTFULLY disagree but I'm equally "disgusted" by the actions of the Republicans. Every effort was made from the beginning to make health care reform a bipartisan effort but when there are high profile Republicans as early as last summer stating the intentions to "break" the President and predicting his "Waterloo", it was clear that wasn't going to happen. They refused to even discuss a public option but now they're complaining that the bills that have been passed are nothing but give-aways to the insurance companies - the very companies they were defending a few months ago. The simple fact is they don't want and they never have wanted health care reform, they're determined to have it fail so they can use that against the Democrats. Tax cuts, tort reform and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines is ALL they'll even hear of and that's not going to solve any problems. Sorry, I didn't want to get off-topic and go into a long post about health care when the topic is the supermajority. If the GOP had a supermajority, it would be a GREAT thing for them because they'd simply ram anything they wanted through unanimously. For the Democrats it was totally worthless, quite frankly. In my opinion, it shouldn't be necessary. The filibuster should be abolished once and for all. I'd never say the losing party, whichever one it is, shouldn't have a voice, but don't elections mean anything? Annie
• United States
25 Jan 10
Actually, the republicans were shut out of the closed door secret meetings... although they had alternative plans to offer. Nice try though...
@poingly (606)
• United States
25 Jan 10
However, when Republicans ideas have been incorporated into bills and ideas to compromise, they've still unanimously voted against measures. It's more of a "why bother?" situation with the latest meetings. Part of it is that Democrats are easier to splinter than Republicans. Part of this is HOW they obtained their super-majority (which includes 2 independents, by the way, in the Senate). The more conservative Democrats are more likely to vote with Republicans than the most liberal Republicans are likely to vote with the Democrats.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
26 Jan 10
"The more conservative Democrats are more likely to vote with Republicans than the most liberal Republicans are likely to vote with the Democrats." Sorry, but you are WAY off on that one. The most liberal republicans in the senate are Snowe and Collins from Maine. They vote with Democrats a whopping 75% and 80% of the time. There is not a single democrat in the senate that votes with Republicans anywhere near that often. The closest are Bayh 29% and Landrieu at 32%.
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
25 Jan 10
Yes... if Conservativeshad a super-majority in order to prevent any foolishness such as ramming through an unconstitutional healthcare bill, or the government takeover of business, or things like TARP or the bailouts... or any other thing that the Constitution does not allow... then that would be a good thing. Government would be very small and limited in it's scope... and the people would not be afraid of what rights the government will try to trample next. If the Constitution were followed as written, America would not be in the condition we now have. This country was built on the belief in God and the desire to be free from tyranny. Conservatives cling to that belief while the Liberals cling to Marx and communism, and think that the people need to be regulated and controlled by the government.
@poingly (606)
• United States
26 Jan 10
Hrm, I wonder if you can explain how we got several of these things under Bush--or how we got the Patriot Act--when a conservative controlled the executive branch. One could argue that Bush isn't a true conservative (though I would certainly not call him liberal!)--though then the same could be said of most Republicans, which would seem to indicate that there is little conservative voice in America's elected officials---which would also seem to indicate that it isn't that popular, so I'd wonder if it could get a super majority.
1 person likes this
• Canada
26 Jan 10
He bolded the word "conservatives" for a reason. Bush was most certainly not a conservative. In fact I'd have a hard time naming a single prominent conservative in either party. Bush was a neocon, as is Palin, Cheney, Guilliani, and all the rest...I'm not even sure what to call McCain. I'm entirely in agreement with you, Destiny007
• United States
26 Jan 10
Destiny007, Muslims believe in a god. The point is there are Conservatives with Nazi leanings and Liberals with Communist leanings who call themselves Christian. And there are Christians who believe in doing for those less fortunate like having health insurance. They don't care about the money hungry insurance companies. We must not forget that the insurance companies operate under probability and odds. They profit because the odds of you getting sick are low, that's why they don't like pre existing conditions. Greed is the name of the game in America and that definitely is not Christian or Godly.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Jan 10
Absolutely NOT. I am so angry at having what Obama and his administration is forcing on to us against our will. This not democracy! This administration has given a whole new meaning to being a democrat. IMO they are autocratic administration! List of autocratic leaders is pretty huge. Most of the dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein and kings ruled with complete and unquestioned powers. Some of them were good and some were tyrannical and the power of tyranny came from their unlimited autocratic power. Should we now add Barack Hussein Obama to the list?
• United States
26 Jan 10
You might not need it, but many Americans need health insurance now! And nothing has been forced on you against your will. If you have health care, good, nothing will change for you. But don't be angry just because I can get it although I can't afford it right now. And it's apparently a Democracy or they still wouldn't be fighting over health care reform in Congress.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Jan 10
You said...."But don't be angry just because I can get it although I can't afford it right now" I find this statement to be very confusing! I am not angry because you can get it but can't afford it there is always Medicaid. I checked your profile and I read you are 60 years of age if Obama and his crew get their way there will be nothing left in Medicare in 5 years. I am 70 and have had Medicare for the past 5 years has it has been sufficient health care coverage for me. Of course I have paid into it for many, many years so I do not want Obama taking (at last count) $400 billion out of it to pay for his pet projects.
@Taskr36 (13926)
• United States
26 Jan 10
You must not realize this Rob, but the bill won't GIVE you insurance. It will FORCE YOU to buy it regardless of how much it costs.
@peavey (15814)
• United States
26 Jan 10
A supermajority quickly becomes something like a dictatorship, so no, it's never good. I'm an Independent voter, but I lean toward Republican thought much more than the Democrats. I don' think it's good for either party to have absolute control; how could it be? The USA is supposed to have a government of balances and checks and that just won't happen if either party or philosophy has absolute control.
• Canada
26 Jan 10
I am kind of put off by the idea of either party having a supermajority. The democrats have demonstrated their irresponsibility when unchecked. However with the republican party being in its current state I would definitely not like to see them gain a supermajority either. Maybe this is why so few take the time to vote??
• United States
25 Jan 10
Super majoirities on either side is bad. Why? They become power hungry. It goes to their heads and they don't have to work together to get anything done. They can bassically ram through anything they want without listening to the other side or even the american public. Of course the actual members of congress love it when their side has super majority. But it is NOT good the american people.
@megamatt (14332)
• United States
25 Jan 10
No, having a supermajority is a bad thing. A very bad thing for reasons. The right questions will not be asked by the people who are in the position to ask them. Those who have opinions that may lead to something better may be shut out by those who have those own agenda. One political party have a balance that skews towards them will lead to nothing but trouble. Both parties have their flaws and their strengths, so there needs to be something that balances them out. Having an overwhelming majority will not do this. In fact, it will hurt a lot in the long run.
@laglen (19783)
• United States
25 Jan 10
Regardless of the party, I do not think a super majority is a good thing. I think having a balance of power (haha wouldnt that be nice) is important to ensure moderation. The less Congress can do, the better. I would like to see the Congress only working maybe a month a year. When they have time to do stupid stuff like declaring holidays, apologizing (yeah they need a resolution to apologize, why not send flowers?) I was going to site specific stupid bills but there are so many to go through.