Suchergebnisse

"Before a bill is voted into law, U.S. senators are allowed to talk about it as much as they want-with no time limit. They can delay the vote by talking without stopping because of filibuster. Explore how senators filibuster, why they filibuster, and why some people question the use of filibuster. It's a key current events topic made approachable for all!"--

Filibuster und Schuldenbremse tragen auf beiden Seiten des Atlantiks zu gesetzgeberischem Versagen bei. Dieses Versagen ist eine der Ursachen für die antidemokratischen Tendenzen. Die Entwicklungen der vergangenen Jahre in den USA sollten dem demokratischen Spektrum in Deutschland Warnung sein. Wer in Ansehung dieser Eindrücke eine symbolische schwarze Null über die realen Herausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts priorisiert, macht sich zum Steigbügelhalter deutscher Trumpisten. Die Europawahl war nur ein Warnschuss.

Filibuster and debt brake contribute to legislative failure on both sides of the Atlantic. This failure is one of the causes of anti-democratic tendencies. The developments of recent years in the USA should serve as a warning to everyone in the democratic spectrum. Those who, in light of these developments, prioritize a symbolic balanced budget over addressing the real challenges of the 21st century are paving the way for German Trumpists. The European election was just a warning shot.

The debate about abolishing the filibuster isn't going anywhere. Proponents say it forces compromise and consensus, while detractors claim it leads to gridlock and minority rule. But is there a third option?

Harvard scholar, Kenneth Shepsle, has a radically different proposal that addresses all these concerns without abolishing the filibuster altogether. We discuss his idea on this episode.

This essay takes Richard Fennos concept of the senatorial career and Keith Krehbiels generalization about the importance of the pivotal 60th senator as points of departure for an account of a day spent on Capitol Hill with Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) in July 2010. The goal of the essay is to describe a day in the career of a senator who took full advantage of opportunities presented by being the pivotal senator on a major piece of legislation. Adapted from the source document.

As the academic year draws to a close at The University of Chicago, our hosts are busy attending to the last minute activities of a professor. So, this week we wanted to re-share one of our favorite episodes interrogating a radically different proposal to fix the filibuster rather than abolishing it altogether.

The filibuster is still one of the most contentious aspects of our politics today, and how it changes or doesn't change has a powerful impact on the most pressing political issues of the moment.

We examine public attitudes about one of the most visible procedural features of Congress, the Senate's filibuster and cloture practice. We measure the stability of those attitudes during an important legislative episode, relate them to more abstract attitudes about majority rule and minority rights, and draw inferences about the importance of those attitudes for evaluations of the parties and vote intention for the 2010 elections. We find that filibuster attitudes change in ways predicted by respondents' partisan and policy preferences. Moreover, controlling for party identification, ideology, policy views, and attitudes about majority rule and minority rights in the abstract, filibuster attitudes have modest, asymmetric effects on party evaluations but no effect on vote intention.