I think this is what he expected....

[callmeslick]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AA9no6Y

you see, I really don't think Obama wants any part of a war legacy, and wants to force Congress to pull the trigger, and own the thing. That they will likely fail to do so is fine, politically, as the failure will not serve the GOP well in the 2016 cycle. The good side, for some of us, is that we likely won't be pissing away men and resources on another half-baked war in a region we don't really understand, and will be able to step aside and let the Arabs wreak havoc on ISIS as they see fit, if they see fit, and sort out some winners and losers in the region on their own. For once.

[Will Robinson]

Well that's a convenient analysis.
He doesn't get what he proposes as our leader....so it's really what he wants....and regardless of the net effect it has he was right and did the right thing.

[callmeslick]

Well that's a convenient analysis.
He doesn't get what he proposes as our leader....so it's really what he wants....and regardless of the net effect it has he was right and did the right thing.

in my eyes, I said I'm happy with the likely outcome. The only reason he put this forward was because the GOP demanded action vs. ISIS. Now, let them put it in writing. I don't think they can, and I suspect Obama knew it.

[Tunnelcat]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AA9no6Y

you see, I really don't think Obama wants any part of a war legacy, and wants to force Congress to pull the trigger, and own the thing. That they will likely fail to do so is fine, politically, as the failure will not serve the GOP well in the 2016 cycle. The good side, for some of us, is that we likely won't be pissing away men and resources on another half-baked war in a region we don't really understand, and will be able to step aside and let the Arabs wreak havoc on ISIS as they see fit, if they see fit, and sort out some winners and losers in the region on their own. For once.

Not only that, I think he wants to get repealed all those broad, large scale war powers that were granted to Bush in 2002. I'm guessing since the Republicans think that they are going to win the White House in 2016, they won't want a future Republican president hobbled with less power whenever that future president decides he wants to fight another future large scale war somewhere. Those powers, that Bush easily got for himself from Congress during a time our country was blinded by fear and under duress, will be very hard to get back after the way Bush abused them, and the Republicans know it. Sneaky.

http://abc7.com/news/obama-on-war-power ... se/512932/

[woodchip]

you see, I really don't think Obama wants any part of a war legacy, and wants to force Congress to pull the trigger, and own the thing.

The sign of a true coward who has no ability to lead.

[Krom]

slick, so what you are saying is no matter which way congress eventually moves on this, Obama can use it to once again show America just how dysfunctional congress is?

In a way I find that kind of frustrating, anyone paying the slightest bit of attention already knows congress is hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional, we don't need another reminder of the problem, what we need is a solution. I think part of the problem is the the sheer numbers of them, there are simply too many, the original congress and house of representatives was a barely manageable 80-91 members, the current body is 535 members. The group is so large it is impossible for them to maintain any sort of intelligent self control, they are ruled by the lowest common denominator mob thought process. Congress doesn't serve America or American interests anymore, I dare say they have become nothing but dead weight and a significant drag on our economy. Probably the easiest way to explain why they still exist is due purely to conservation of momentum: They have existed since the beginning so they continue to coast on that momentum. But they are now too big, too slow and too obsessed with their own individual advancement to actually serve any useful purpose as a group anymore. The only time they actually get anything done is when they begrudgingly rubber stamp something someone else puts into motion.

We need a congress because it is basically impossible to operate a government without an oligarchy, the problem is that the oligarchy tends to grow too big for its own good which causes breakdowns and congress has been well beyond that point for decades. Congress is just too diluted to function anymore, they can't come together to do anything because the mob mentality forces everything they do to first go through unrealistically strict ideological filters.

There have been many studies on group decision making and the results are pretty much always the same, the most effective group decision making happens when the group size is within the range of 5-7 people. 8 people also works without a significant drop in effectiveness, but for every additional person beyond that the effectiveness of the group drops by 10%. That might explain why congress has been consistently enjoying an approval rating that regularly dips into the single digits for much of recent history. I'm not sure on the math of this, but if we assume that a group of 8 people have a group decision making effectiveness of "80%" (which might be optimistic) and each additional member reduces the effectiveness by 10% (so 80% becomes 72%, then 64.8%, 58.32% and so on...), then a group of 535 people will have a decision making effectiveness somewhere around 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of one percent. Given their recent track record, I can believe that figure.

I'm not saying the power of congress should be reduced to a size of only 8 people, because half the reason for congress being the size it is was originally set at was to dilute power so it would work as a breaking mechanism on the government, but this is just plain ridiculous. They are so big that rather than maintaining government to a proper pace like they are supposed to, they have instead frozen it solid. Nothing is getting done, the government is weak and ineffective and we simply can't hold our position globally without an effective government, the world is not such a friendly place where we can survive long term like this, their ineffectiveness is letting through significant damage that can not be easily recovered from.

[Spidey]

slick, so what you are saying is no matter which way congress eventually moves on this, Obama can use it to once again show America just how dysfunctional congress is?

Yes, it’s called having it both ways.

[vision]

They are so big that rather than maintaining government to a proper pace like they are supposed to, they have instead frozen it solid.

It is almost as if Congress needs it's own internal micro-government. In a sense that is already in place. There are key people who anchor or sway larger groups. I would be interested in seeing a solution that maybe breaks Congress into a 2-tier system.

[Spidey]

Congress is already a two tier system…Senate and House.

[Will Robinson]

Krom that is interesting.
What if all the States congressmen maintained their roles but were assigned to belong to 8 super districts and those 8 representatives were each appointed by their group of State representatives. They served for 2 year terms and only those 8 passed legislation at the Federal level...

I wonder how that would effect things.

[Top Gun]

Or if we just get some goddamn term limits and kick the bastards out before they're in there long enough to start growing mold.

[Will Robinson]

Or if we just get some ******* term limits and kick the bastards out before they're in there long enough to start growing mold.

Term limits alone won't help, they get in there already compromised most of the time. They represent the people that got them elected and it isn't the voters, it is the political fraternity.

If five States were randomly selected to make up a group and those states representatives were told they could each offer up one name to be put on a list from which only one person would be chosen to cast the votes in Congress for the group.... to be their group of States 'proxy' representative. And all the states were broken down and assigned the same way. Mixing 'red' and 'blue' states based on the previous presidential election. We would see some improvement I think. A time limit on the groups choosing the one voter from the list and a coin flip deciding it if they can't get that job done as well as their seats put up for special election to replace them immediately.

There would be a great deal less of the Party influence on how votes were cast. There would be a great deal of pragmatism in the choosing of the 'proxy voters'.

[Krom]

Hmmm.... Yeah that sounds like a pretty reasonable idea. I was thinking having some kind of "Adult supervision" would be nice, but would be hard to do effectively without partially or almost completely invalidating the authority of congress (and thus further wrecking the balance of power). But keeping congress the same size, just dividing it up into smaller groups with stronger leadership does sound like a reasonably effective plan at least worth testing. I think the sub groups would still have to be kept isolated from each other at some level, because you don't want them getting together too much and maintaining their mob mentality. Perhaps requiring that any meaningful interaction between sub groups can only be done by working through their respective designated "leaders".

I also agree with Will; term limits alone won't fix this problem. A big part of the it is that we are supposed to have three branches of government to prevent lockups and ties, but instead the political parties have all but taken over all three branches and reduced them to "left vs right" (although this is most apparent in congress because of their mob mentality). Term limits would increase the churn, but wouldn't really address the base problem of 535 people being nothing but a lowest common denominator mob rule.

One other thing I'd say congress is definitely in need of, is a rule which states that any legislation a congressperson brings forward has to be hand written by the sponsor themselves. I'd say the entire process of legislation should be hand written by the actual person bringing it forward, so the initial draft and any proposed modifications, all the way through to the final bill which would be sent to the presidents desk for signing must be hand written by the sponsor. No word processing would be allowed and hand writing analysis could be required at any time to verify the author. I think doing that would be very beneficial for a couple reasons; first it forces the person writing the bill to know everything that goes into it, as opposed to today when a lot of congresspeople bring forward legislation written by some lobby or special interest group and they haven't even read the damn thing. And second, because handwriting is slower and less efficient than word processors, it would be a little more difficult for a bill to bloat to thousands of pages which could be legislating ANYTHING and be nothing but a Trojan horse full of awful stuff that would never pass on its own. Maybe even requiring special paper and dated pages so if the bill fails (like SOPA), it gets locked away in the library of congress or something and can't be easily brought back a couple years later when the public isn't paying attention anymore.

[callmeslick]

you see, I really don't think Obama wants any part of a war legacy, and wants to force Congress to pull the trigger, and own the thing.

The sign of a true coward who has no ability to lead.

rich, when every time he leads, the nitwits in Congress sue him.

[woodchip]

So you're speaking of his famous red line policy? Or how he wasn't willing to set up a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqis which would of prevented ISIS from invading. Yeah...congress sued him on both issues.

[callmeslick]

no suits there, they were busy dithering.

[Z..]

Slick, how can you argue with someone that thinks peed is spelled with an apostrophe? A college educated man that doesn't know how to properly conjugate even the simplest of verbs?

[callmeslick]

and, does anyone see how badly Will's method could be skewed by a single party to essentially yield totalitarian government?(either party, theoretically).

[Will Robinson]

and, does anyone see how badly Will's method could be skewed by a single party to essentially yield totalitarian government?(either party, theoretically).

I don't see how. Explain it to me please.

[sigma]

I think I begin to understand... It turns out to make a political career in the US, you have to practice a policy of aggression!

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... consensus/

[callmeslick]

and, does anyone see how badly Will's method could be skewed by a single party to essentially yield totalitarian government?(either party, theoretically).

I don't see how. Explain it to me please.

because you could gerrymander the clusters of states so that one party or the other controlled the casting of an overwhelming majority of votes, to put it simply. Basically, ugly though it is, imperfect as it is, there is a lot of fairness and balance built into the current arrangement of both Congress and the Electoral College. Most of the unfairness or skews are largely at the feet of low turnout, and the way the parties have remade their primary processes.

[Krom]

How exactly are they going to deliberately gerrymander random rotating clusters of states?

[callmeslick]

How exactly are they going to deliberately gerrymander random rotating clusters of states?

by clustering voting blocs. How would you 'randomize' those clusters? It could be done, every bit as easily as has been figured out under the current system. Once you do that, you have huge monolithic voting blocs controlled, once again, by MONEY, ultimately.

[Will Robinson]

How exactly are they going to deliberately gerrymander random rotating clusters of states?

by clustering voting blocs. How would you 'randomize' those clusters? It could be done, every bit as easily as has been figured out under the current system. Once you do that, you have huge monolithic voting blocs controlled, once again, by MONEY, ultimately.

Slick you aren't making sense. You must not have read my comments correctly...
The state's would be assigned their groups randomly mixing red leaning and blue leaning states.

How would either party manipulate that selection process? They will have no say in the matter. You could have Texas thrown in a group with California one period and then in a different group the following period.

There is no mechanism that can be abused in the way you describe.

The process would actually provide one aspect the Senate was conceived to provide that is lost currently due to Party politics becoming a priority. Where the cooler heads were supposed to prevail they defer to their Party's needs too often right now.

The way it would differ in that respect though, is the proxy representative would have to represent congressmen from both parties...they would be voting the interests of states that lean both ways etc. their appointment to position of proxy representative would have no Party participation, no campaign donations, etc
Their own preferences/ideology would be completely of their own design with no obligations attached to their ability to get appointed.

The worst case scenario is these proxy reps would be a smaller number of completely partisan members just like the larger body is today...although it would be creating the 'smaller group' Krom pointed to as necessary to facilitating progress. So even in the worst case scenario it provides the primary function it was implemented to achieve.

Best case scenario the state's would offer up names of reps that are less partisan and more statesman in nature with hopes their 'reasonable choice' would be voted in...
Win win.

[callmeslick]

I read your idea, but suspect that the 'randomness' would be tinkered with. You and I may suspect politicians of different things, Will, but we both are suspicious of politicians. I'll stick with the current electoral system, thanks, but would like to see a different primary process. Although, the core issue with THAT is still low voter participation, which is the core of our political woes. Further, it becomes a viscious cycle: low turnout begets extremists, and gridlock, which breeds cynicism and mistrust, leading to further depressed turnout, etc.

[callmeslick]

futher, Will, I miss how your system would overcome(as did the original arrangement) size differential between states. In other words, what happens when you pair Red Texas with Blue Delaware and Rhode Island? Does the sheer numbers from Texas determine the representation of the little states? Not a good system, IMHO. Kudos for giving the matter some thought, but the fine balance we have in place is damned good, and isn't the reason for problems.

[Spidey]

...but the fine balance we have in place is damned good, and isn't the reason for problems.

OMG, I actually agree.

[Will Robinson]

futher, Will, I miss how your system would overcome(as did the original arrangement) size differential between states. In other words, what happens when you pair Red Texas with Blue Delaware and Rhode Island? Does the sheer numbers from Texas determine the representation of the little states? Not a good system, IMHO. Kudos for giving the matter some thought, but the fine balance we have in place is damned good, and isn't the reason for problems.

The regular Congressmen don't lose their function, nor does the proportional ratio of representation disappear. They still serve to author legislation, reach out to their constituents and craft strategy for Bills that would actually serve them. They will still serve/form committees, etc.
But once a Bill is sent to the floor the proxy reps are the ones who hash it out. And lobbying a Proxy Rep is a crime the same as trying to bribe a Federal judge.

When creating legislation you reduce the Bills introduced that are born of the ulterior motive of creating a Bill with no intention of getting it passed but rather making political statements. If it goes to the vote it will be the committee of Proxy Rep's that decide and they have different motives than the partisan lackeys we have posturing in their now. You have to be careful what you send to the floor...

It would be a bit of having a mature person decide if the vote should be yea or nay based more on the merit/net result of the Bill instead of so many games and pork projects getting through because of the weight of the Party buying votes from congressmen or empowering certain congressmen with the ability to push-a-vote-through-or-else...or the 'plausible deniability' game they play when they vote for their districts best interest but only with the Party's permission once enough nay votes are secured by the Party to ensure the Bill won't really pass because that serves the Party's agenda, etc.

It won't stop all the games but it will reign it in a good bit. And it makes the group doing the voting small enough to be able to reach agreements and more motivated to deliver a sensible vote based on results instead of power plays.

Im sure there must be some flaws in the idea, I just pulled it off the top of my head after reading Kroms explanation of the problem, but you haven't uncovered them yet.

[callmeslick]

on the original topic, I thought this was pretty spot-on: