October 23, 2021

The Pulse

Complete News World

American Politics, USA | Beat all records when he speaks uninterrupted for 24 hours. Democrats are now considering removing the regime

Democrats are in open conflict after Republicans once again called an important bill “Philipster.”

Republicans in the Senate have unanimously rejected Democrats to begin a formal debate on a new electoral law reform (law for the people) in the United States.

Therefore, there will be no votes in the Senate to pass the Electoral Act already passed in the House of Representatives. Republicans have used the tactic of Philipster. In short, the Philippister tactic gives veto power to minorities over the majority.

– Philipster is a special rule that only applies to the Senate. This allows each bill to be spoken indefinitely, which prevents a bill from being passed, Hilmar Melde, a senior researcher at the NORCE Research Center, tells Netavision.

Also read: – Fear China will create an alternative system in the world

Former Senator Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest single Philippester post. It happened in 1957 when he spoke 24 hours and 18 minutes to prevent the passage of a bill on civil rights.

– Because of the rules, a majority of 60 senators is required to cancel a Philippester. Because the parties in Congress are equal and there is little cooperation in ways that divide the party, such a majority usually does not get any party, says Mgelde.

The whole process of considering electoral law reform in the Senate has already failed in a preparatory vote. Democrats needed a majority of 60 to 40 votes to continue the process, which they would not have had without the support of Republicans.

If Democrats still want to pass election law today, they must eliminate the entire Philippines program.

– Yeah Al that sounds pretty crap to me, Looks like Evil Luke Netizen is still a thinker.

In recent weeks, Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly used the Philipster tactic to prevent passage of Democrats’ bills, including plans to protect voting rights (electoral law reform) and the establishment of a separate commission to investigate the January 6 congressional attack. Write Washington Post.

READ  Deborah Birks - Book: Hope Trump Will Lose

Disagreement over “nuclear preference”

Philipster’s fate now appears to be putting an end to many of the problems that President Joe Biden has on his political agenda.

This has strengthened the demand of some Democrats to change or remove the entire Philippister system in the Senate. Such a drastic solution is referred to as the “nuclear option”.

Democrats need a simple majority, which they have if all Democrats in the Senate unite behind such a drive.

The Democrats have 50 seats in the Senate, and if they use Vice President Kamala Harris, the Plus One vote will give the Democrats a simple majority.

Also read: – I met the next president of Iran in a torture chamber. I was very pregnant

Facts about Philipster

* Advanced strategies to prevent a proposal from being accepted by providing endless texts and texts.

* This word, which comes from the Dutch and means robber, refers to “abducting” the discussion.

* Most national legislatures have provisions to stop such adjournment maneuvers after a certain period of time.

* Philipster tactics are not allowed in Sorting, Norway, where delegates have limited speaking time.

* This tactic is well known from the U.S. Senate where senators have unlimited speaking time and all senators have the right to speak before accepting a proposal.

* However, since 1917, the Senate has had the opportunity to decide to adjourn a debate. However, this requires the support of at least 60 senators.

(Source: NTP, Store Norske Lexicon, Wikipedia)

These days the focus is on all Democratic senators who are not ready to scrap the Philippester plan, namely Senator Kirsten Cinema and Senator Joe Munch.

– The Senate sets its own rules, so the Senate can eliminate the entire program with a simple majority. But Democrats can’t do that unless they want to get rid of Joe Munch’s Philippister system. They need 50 votes plus one (Vice President Kamala Harris editorial note), says Luke.

– If Democrats now choose to repeal the Philippister rule, it could be reintroduced when Republicans gain control of the Senate. But Luke says they don’t like it when they have a majority of their own.

READ  EuroNext Growth - Oslo Pars announces suspension of capital stake in NEDO from E24

President Joe Biden is also sluggish about repealing the Philippister rule, and has not yet made a final official decision.

– No one is specifically based on policy

A paradox is that many Democratic senators are now arguing that the system should be abolished, while Republicans supported the Philippister regime when it had a majority in the Senate.

– No parties are particularly principled here. They’re for Filipuster when it serves them, and talk a little bit about it when they enjoy it, says Mgelde.

Also read: FRP to lead attack on Conservatives after MDG court: – Have they completely lost policy?

– On the left in the United States today, there is pressure for the United States to function as a parliamentary body, where a narrow majority is allowed to rule indefinitely. Because they themselves have this majority in Congress. But the United States is not a parliamentary body, the United States is a Madison organization that enjoys the devolution of power and the strong protection of minorities. Very strong, some would think, and this is a fair debate, says Mgelde.

– And the vet?

Luke says he understands those who argue that the Philipster plan is in the Senate, but he is not a big supporter of it.

– If you are going to control the cultural polarization in the United States and want cross-party legislative decisions, Filipinters can help confirm it. But on the other hand, whichever side you are on, it is democratically questionable. I’ve never been a fan of Filipusters. As Francis Fukuyama (acclaimed American political scientist. Editor’s note) put it, nothing can do that America is a veto. Filipusters help maintain this, says Luke.

The term vetocracy refers to a dysfunctional government system where no organization / group can achieve sufficient power to make decisions or implement political decisions. Fukuyama’s understanding of the word in the direction of its increased ability or desire to exercise veto power within the government or institutional system.

READ  Corona in Vietnam: - Can be a disaster

Also read: – Family to Donald Trump

– From a democratic point of view, do Filipinos really have a right to life, Mgelde?

– Philipster’s vision depends on what perspective democracy puts down. America’s political system and culture are full of vetoes that slow down the political process. There are three motivations for this, he says.

– 1. The idea that only legislation with broad political support should be passed. 2. Slow decision-making processes result in well-considered legislation. A narrow majority should not be crushed by bills at a rapid pace. 3. Protecting the political interests and preferences of minorities, says Mgelde.

– Philipster is one of the many tools for spreading power in the American political system. He added that the federal, bicameral system, the Electoral College and the special rules of the Senate were other examples.

Clinton wants to eliminate this plan

Former President and Democrat Bill Clinton this week flagged which side he is taking in the ongoing war within Democrats.

– I understand the President’s reluctance to remove it for once, and I sympathize with Joe Manzin for trying to stand on the right and represent those who voted 2 to 1 for President Trump. But when it comes to defending democracy, I think it’s right to stop the Philippines because it is necessary, Clinton said in a statement. TV interview.

The “law for the people” electoral reform passed in the House of Representatives in March is to protect the right to vote. Among other things, its purpose is to ensure the right to vote by post and the right to vote.

Electoral law reform came in response to the introduction of new electoral laws by several states after Trump’s defeat last fall. Critics believe that new electoral laws in some states limit the voting power of many Americans in practice.