WTF Since when was a 40% vote enough for a motion to pass or stall

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/dadt-repeal-fails_n_794626.html

So the defense bill (with repeal of DADT attached) went up for a vote and because only 57 of the 100 Senators voted FOR the measure, it failed.

What?

Since when did a minority of votes declare the final conclusion of the tally?

Yes I know filibuster whatever. Why is that policy even in place? What is the point of a majority vote when a majority vote doesn't work anymore?
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,015
4,145
323
kansas city
Marklar
1,877.10₥
article 1, section 5, clause 2

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

senate decided 60 votes were needed. theoretically they could decide only 40 votes is needed. :iono:
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,365
430
41
42
Austin
Marklar
663.49₥
51 is majority but it isn't a large majority, which can really, really complicate things on tight issues. 2/3 ensures that no fence straddlers have control.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
33,922
8,399
473
38
Oz
Marklar
25,442.40₥
51 is majority but it isn't a large majority, which can really, really complicate things on tight issues. 2/3 ensures that no fence straddlers have control.
fence straddlers? That could happen with any ratio. Filibusters are worse! Get rid of that shit.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,365
430
41
42
Austin
Marklar
663.49₥
Fence straddlers are far less likely though when you need to be closer to a larger majority. If you're getting up towards 70% support already, the bill probably has sufficient backing to avoid bullshit. If the Senate is evenly divided it's a much bigger deal.
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,015
4,145
323
kansas city
Marklar
1,877.10₥
besides, senate should be a higher ratio as it represents 50 individual states so theoretically 26 states representing like 10% of the total population could be in charge.

the house on the other hand fairly evenly represents the general population (haha, i said our politicians actually represent us...), thus a majority vote is a fair consensus to what the masses want (again... this is purely in theory, we all know it really just represents special interest groups with the most money)

i really do have a good point here, just to tired to properly verbalize it at the moment. the way the senate is set up though i think more than 51% should be required in order to get a true vote from the general public.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
51 is majority but it isn't a large majority, which can really, really complicate things on tight issues. 2/3 ensures that no fence straddlers have control.
With only a two party system, rarely anything would get passed with a 2/3 vote.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
besides, senate should be a higher ratio as it represents 50 individual states so theoretically 26 states representing like 10% of the total population could be in charge.

the house on the other hand fairly evenly represents the general population (haha, i said our politicians actually represent us...), thus a majority vote is a fair consensus to what the masses want (again... this is purely in theory, we all know it really just represents special interest groups with the most money)

i really do have a good point here, just to tired to properly verbalize it at the moment. the way the senate is set up though i think more than 51% should be required in order to get a true vote from the general public.
The whole purpose of having two halves of Congress is to exactly prevent that from happening. If NYers decided to allow abortion but those in Utah or Alaska are vehimently wanting to deny that legal ability, they should have a voice, too. The combination of a Senate and House gives them at least a partial say in the matter.

I am ok with having a system like that.

What worries me is when 70% of the population want to get rid of DADT, all of the people implementing that policy want to get rid of the policy. The commander-in-chief want to get rid of the policy. But yet it takes only 40% of those that have been voted in to keep the policy going. Oh, and federal judges. So technically a majority of the legislative branch, the executive branch AND the judicial branch all technically have repealed this policy yet it is still in place. Obviously this procedure needs to be reviewed.
 
Last edited:

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,015
4,145
323
kansas city
Marklar
1,877.10₥
The whole purpose of having two halves of Congress is to exactly prevent that from happening. If NYers decided to allow abortion but those in Utah or Alaska are vehimently wanting to deny that legal ability, they should have a voice, too. The combination of a Senate and House gives them at least a partial say in the matter.

I am ok with having a system like that.

What worries me is when 70% of the population want to get rid of DADT, all of the people implementing that policy want to get rid of the policy. The commander-in-chief want to get rid of the policy. But yet it takes only 40% of those that have been voted in to keep the policy going. Oh, and federal judges. So technically a majority of the legislative branch, the executive branch AND the judicial branch all technically have repealed this policy yet it is still in place. Obviously this procedure needs to be reviewed.
just because it has failed for one policy, doesn't mean it isn't highly successful elsewhere.

Abortion should be decided by the state and be no where near the fed government anyways. What alaska wants and does shouldn't effect other states.
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
42
Columbus, OH
Marklar
3,593.23₥
hey look we agree on something

life is not precious. there's a fuckton of life all over the place. we have life coming out of our fucking ears. rights of the current life > rights of potential life
Regardless of that. Government shouldn't be deciding what one person can do to their own body. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses. And this is coming from someone who personally is anti-abortion.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
41
Marklar
21,493.06₥
Regardless of that. Government shouldn't be deciding what one person can do to their own body. A woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy if she so chooses. And this is coming from someone who personally is anti-abortion.
that's my point. the standard argument put forth as to why government should have a say is because one of the duties of government is to protect the lives of its citizens

guess I only ran that through my head and forgot to post it :p
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
33,922
8,399
473
38
Oz
Marklar
25,442.40₥
hey look we agree on something

life is not precious. there's a fuckton of life all over the place. we have life coming out of our fucking ears. rights of the current life > rights of potential life
Well I don't agree with your reasoning. Government should not have the right to tell an individual what they can or can not do with there own body.