this is my 100th post. it's a tad lacklustre, but what are you gonna do about it?
and so, in celebration, i'd like to pose the question (as i'm slightly ignorant of these matters):
if the dems hold only a 1 or 2 seat majority in the house, how does this really affect their decision making process? thinking from my limited, uneducated point of view, i can see how gaining a few dem seats would increase the left influence. however, if the seats are essentially split almost evenly, wouldnt that only allow for a lot more stalemates? 50% vote this way, 50% vote that way. they'll have to work harder at convincing one another to go for something. (disclaimer: i dont know what percentage of votes are needed to pass anything in congress.)
i get the impression that all the left-minded people out there think that major changes will happen b/c of this shift of power. i am inclined to say that no changes will occur.
help, anyone? opinions, pining, complaints, cutting remarks are all welcome.
posted by dr gonzo at 9:26 AM
5 Comments:
Only a simple majority is needed to pass something in Congress. ie: one vote. However to pass something so that it cannot be vetoed by the President you need 2/3 of the Congress to vote for the item.
This is why if you have a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican controlled White House you should be able to pass pretty much anything you want (if all the repubs agreed) and visa-versa. I don't know what the Repubs have been doing the last two years, but it wasn't much.
So I also don't think the change will be that great. There may be more swing votes in play, but I don't think they Dems would be about to pull 2/3 of the votes their way, which is what they would need to pass something the Pres doesn't want. So they will have to cater to the Pres, but they can also make the Pres look bad by making him veto everything they pass. Of course he already looks bad to most of the country so I don't know what that will prove.
I have a tendancy to this politics don't change and whatever side of the fence you are on, you aren't going to make too much of a difference. Sadly. So I don't see much changing. Will Social Security be fixed? Will we get National Health Care? Will we pull out of Iraq? Probably not.
10lees
10:29 AM
what is really going to twist your nob on this one gonz is that the "president of the senate" is actually vice president Dick Cheney. What this mean is that if the senate vote is a tie the deciding vote is to be cast by the Vice President.
what being in the majority truly gives a party is the title Senate Majority Leader. While this position isn't technically as high as the Speaker of the House (3rd in line to be president), teh senate majority leaders responsibilities include controlling the agenda of the senate. Meaning that they can technically control when bills are voted on and what those bills are. That is why you want to be in charge
7:23 PM
ok, so the senate part makes sense.
and the congress voting makes sense.
what if we add into the equation Bush's lack of vetos until recently? do you think he was "saving up"?
10:11 AM
blah :)
1:49 PM
You don't really have to save up vetos, they are like time outs in a football game. But he could probably just enforce his republican influence to get bills killed.
10lees
8:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home