Congress – run by the minority?
Matt Yglesias makes an interesting point:
We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.
Perhaps our current gridlock isn’t just a matter of partisan politics. If Yglesias is right (that legislative minorities should either have to wait to take power, a la the UK, or share power in a proportional way), then it seems that our system is built for simple obstruction.
-Colin
Related posts:
- Glenn Beck and Plato
- Max Weber and realism
- Should Congress pass an airline passengers’ bill of rights?
- Wrangling over ethics
- Right of resistance
ShareComments
One Response to “Congress – run by the minority?”
Leave a Reply
I don’t always understand why gridlock shocks people or why they find it so frustrating. Virtually every aspect of the law-making process is meant to produce gridlock. I think it’s clear, and easy to conclude, that the Founders preferred inaction to action. Thus bicameralism, equal representation in the Senate (and a guarantee of 1 seat in the House), presentment to the President, etc. Amendments are even worse.