• @pingveno
    link
    22 years ago

    tl;dr: Congress has abdicated many of its powers by over-delegating to the executive, and Congress seems perfectly happy to keep i that way. Part of this is because of an unanticipated flaw in the Constitution: the Framers conceived of Congress and the President as rivals, whereas now partisan alignment across branches is much more significant. It’s not mentioned here, but Supreme Court decisions this term have significantly eroded the Chevron Doctrine, which has courts defer to administrative agency’s judgement on interpretation of a Congressional statute.

    As SCOTUS tightens the freedoms of the administrative state, the idea from proponents of tightening is that Congress will step into the gap to reclaim the power that they should never have given away. However, there’s no indication that the fundamental malaise on Congress will lift. It is too polarized and too based around oppositional politics rather than producing compromise bills that best represent the will of the people.

    Representation in general is a problem as well. The Electoral College presents a growing danger because it is increasingly unrepresentative. We’ve now had two elections in 16 years where the winner of the popular vote lost the election. The same happens with Congress, but more severe. Continued minority rule could cause chaos as the majority no long accepts rule by the minority.

    • @electrodynamica@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      Representation in general is a problem as well. The Electoral College presents a growing danger because it is increasingly unrepresentative. We’ve now had two elections in 16 years where the winner of the popular vote lost the election. The same happens with Congress, but more severe. Continued minority rule could cause chaos as the majority no long accepts rule by the minority.

      The people haven’t elected a president since Al Gore. And the last 4? Supreme Court justices were picked by the minority party, from a pool of about 3 dozen or so judges that are part of an openly hostile extremist group.

      • @pingveno
        link
        12 years ago

        I’m with you with the justices, but could you elaborate on Al Gore, especially since he didn’t actually get the presidency?

        • @electrodynamica@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          Al Gore won the vote. Then his opponent’s brother, Jeb Bush, governor of Florida suddenly found ‘irregularities’, threw out a ton of votes, and just merely coincidentally now his brother was declared winner? We’re supposed to believe that? Maybe if his dad wasn’t just president a decade earlier, that might be believable… maybe.

          • @pingveno
            link
            12 years ago

            Oh, the usual way to say that is “The people haven’t elected a president since Bill Clinton.” since Al Gore was not elected president. But where do Obama and Biden fit in there?

              • @pingveno
                link
                0
                edit-2
                2 years ago

                That’s a big exception, considering that his time in office comprises over a third of the time since the start of Bush’s term. Also, declaring “the people elected Bernie Sanders” is just wrong. He didn’t get anything near a victory in either primary. He also would almost certainly have crashed and burned hard if he ever got to the general, so equating “socialists love Bernie” to “the people elected Bernie Sanders” is at best unknowable and likely very incorrect.

                • @electrodynamica@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  22 years ago

                  There’s so many moving pieces with Hillary that it would be difficult to make a solid case, especially with the whole Weiner Comey fiasco. But I will say about that, there was a double standard, before with Trump it was thou shalt not make announcements too close to election day, then suddenly they did the opposite with Hillary. As for Bernie, it came out after that the Democratic leadership very much ignored the caucus to choose Hillary instead of Bernie. Donna Brazil admitted some pretty messed up shenanigans on public TV.

                  But then the following election, forgive me I don’t remember all of the exact minutiae, but Bernie was winning, and was pressured into a premature concession when Buttigieg conceded to Biden, a selfish calculated act which might even be paid back by him being the next chosen king. At least that was his hope and there’s been a lot of scuttlebutt about it. Krystal Ball did a segment about it once, I’m too lazy to look up the YouTube vid but it’s probably easy to find.

                  • @pingveno
                    link
                    22 years ago

                    In 2020, Bernie was winning a plurality, but the more moderate lane had a strong majority. After Biden won South Carolina bolstered by the Black vote there, the other moderate candidates (Klobuchar and Buttigieg) dropped out. Biden also had a strong lead in polling in Super Tuesday, so there was no point in the other moderate candidates continuing. Bernie was never getting more than around 1/4 of the vote.

                    In 2016, Hillary pushed to clear the field of strong contenders. That more or less happened, so it’s hard to tell how many people actually liked Bernie (though that was a good chunk) and how many disliked being denied a healthy slate of candidates to pick from. I’m not sure what shenanigans you’re referring to. Was it her giving debate questions ahead of time? If so, that was incredibly bone headed on both Brazil and Podesta’s parts. The questions were ones that Hillary was certainly already prepared for. One was death penalty related, so generic as they come. The other was a local person asking about lead pipes. In Flint, MI. Not exactly a curve ball.