Hyroglyphx writes:
As it stands, a filibuster is often the only thing preventing sitting presidents from waging totalitarian and unopposed rule.
The President can't pass laws. He needs the cooperation of the other two branches, one to pass the laws and the other to deem them constitutional when challenged.
Also, the whole "majority rule" is also terribly flawed... as is the problem of Direct Democracy, or as some have termed it, "Mob Rule." The adage Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner rings true in this instance.
That's what the constitutionally protected rights are there for.
BUT . . . I get where you are coming from. The argument for the filibuster is that it prevents wild swings between party ideologies. The counter-argument is that voters don't care as much about the policy positions of the people they vote for because very few of those policies are going to be put into action. If there was a real consequence to who is elected, perhaps candidates would lean towards more centrist policies and voters would pay more attention to what affects them.
But your point that its problematic is certainly substantiated. I'm just not sure that the alternative is better.
The best example I can think of is the Republican led Senate vote on health care that eventually fell through. The bill was exempt from filibuster, and Republicans had the members to pass it. Republicans had been ranting up and down about repealing Obamacare, and here they were with the chance to do it. They couldn't get the votes. Suddenly, it wasn't just rhetoric. There were real consequences to taking away a program that supplied millions of people with health insurance, and they just couldn't do it.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.