1. Members of Congress are elected based on intelligence, experience and integrity.
2. Elected members hire staff/aides based on intelligence, experience and integrity.
3. Elected members are assigned to committees and subcommittees based on their areas of expertise and/or interests
4. Members of committees and subcommittees (and their staff/aides) become fully informed and educated on key issues; in the case of climate change, that process would include balanced input from climate scientists, industry leaders, economists, and other true stakeholders.
5. Subcommittees and committees would reach a consensus on the underlying facts; e.g., quantify the tangible costs of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions, work together to develop effective and practical solutions (e.g., phased reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, incentives for cleaner energy (from fossil fuels) and renewable energy) and present those solutions to the full House and Senate.
6. Members of full House and Senate would respect and fully digest the proposals from the highly informed committees and subcommittees, using their own well-qualified staff/aides.
7. Acknowledging that there will be pragmatic compromises needed to address the differences in ideologies across the political spectrum, proposed legislation would be tweaked to address intellectually honest concerns of various members of full House and Senate (not blatant obstruction based on connections to special interests or uninformed grandstanding, e.g. fact deniers).
Reasons why the process does not work this way:
1. Gerrymandering leads to concentrations of like-minded people.
2. A large segment of the public is not well-informed, does not respect or believe recognized experts, and chooses to believe questionable content and conspiracy theories on social media.
3. Extremist, unqualified (to Kagan's point) candidates more interested in popularity and fund-raising take advantages of Reasons 1 and 2 to get elected and control the narrative.
4. The two political parties are polarized and vote strictly along party lines.
5. The 68.2% become frustrated and disenfranchised.
The recent limited gun control legislation provides a glimmer of hope that moderates can pull the 2 sides together, but that feels like a “one off” made possible by an extreme situation. This all comes back to your original premise for the 68.2% and the conundrum of how the silent majority can regain their voice and influence. I have started reading about “ranked choice voting” as a compromise between a 2 party system and a multi-party system. Would be interested in your thoughts on that.
You hit the nail on the head. Congress has become a giant flaccid penis of ineptitude, apathy, and infighting. Your priest has a great idea in his homily. Maybe we all need new opinion goggles. That said, Kagan’s dissent is troubling. Keep up the good work, brother.
The way the legislative process should work:
1. Members of Congress are elected based on intelligence, experience and integrity.
2. Elected members hire staff/aides based on intelligence, experience and integrity.
3. Elected members are assigned to committees and subcommittees based on their areas of expertise and/or interests
4. Members of committees and subcommittees (and their staff/aides) become fully informed and educated on key issues; in the case of climate change, that process would include balanced input from climate scientists, industry leaders, economists, and other true stakeholders.
5. Subcommittees and committees would reach a consensus on the underlying facts; e.g., quantify the tangible costs of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions, work together to develop effective and practical solutions (e.g., phased reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, incentives for cleaner energy (from fossil fuels) and renewable energy) and present those solutions to the full House and Senate.
6. Members of full House and Senate would respect and fully digest the proposals from the highly informed committees and subcommittees, using their own well-qualified staff/aides.
7. Acknowledging that there will be pragmatic compromises needed to address the differences in ideologies across the political spectrum, proposed legislation would be tweaked to address intellectually honest concerns of various members of full House and Senate (not blatant obstruction based on connections to special interests or uninformed grandstanding, e.g. fact deniers).
Reasons why the process does not work this way:
1. Gerrymandering leads to concentrations of like-minded people.
2. A large segment of the public is not well-informed, does not respect or believe recognized experts, and chooses to believe questionable content and conspiracy theories on social media.
3. Extremist, unqualified (to Kagan's point) candidates more interested in popularity and fund-raising take advantages of Reasons 1 and 2 to get elected and control the narrative.
4. The two political parties are polarized and vote strictly along party lines.
5. The 68.2% become frustrated and disenfranchised.
The recent limited gun control legislation provides a glimmer of hope that moderates can pull the 2 sides together, but that feels like a “one off” made possible by an extreme situation. This all comes back to your original premise for the 68.2% and the conundrum of how the silent majority can regain their voice and influence. I have started reading about “ranked choice voting” as a compromise between a 2 party system and a multi-party system. Would be interested in your thoughts on that.
You hit the nail on the head. Congress has become a giant flaccid penis of ineptitude, apathy, and infighting. Your priest has a great idea in his homily. Maybe we all need new opinion goggles. That said, Kagan’s dissent is troubling. Keep up the good work, brother.