The Instigator
Andrew.Cerean
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
A341
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Every law that is passed by congress should require a 2/3 vote.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
A341
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 46160
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Andrew.Cerean

Pro

All laws presented by the United States Congress should require a 2/3 vote to be passed into law.

First round is for acceptance.
A341

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Andrew.Cerean

Pro

Initial Talking Points:

Democratic and Republican parties have become more polarized in recent history. It has been a common trend for a political party to dominate the House of Representatives or the Senate, and quickly pass laws simply because they occupy a majority of the seats in the House or the Senate. This creates some issues.

1. A 2/3 vote presents a more accurate representation of what society really wants. Any Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote, why shouldn't the same concept be applied to passing all laws?

2. The constant flip flopping between parties holding the majority in the Senate or House creates an environment of uncertainty for businesses. Businesses may become more hesitant to grow or invest money as new laws/regulations may have a negative impact on business.

3. It is not uncommon for a political party to completely repeal a previous parties law implementation.

4. This concept would actually encourage law makers to work together. Republicans would have to convince Democrats and vice versa. When both parties work together in this manner, the United States could see some positive results. Both parties will have to find a common ground.

5. Society constantly changes, therefore we need a constant to ensure that a government body does not change to quickly.

A 2/3 vote should be required to pass a law, and a 2/3 vote should be required to repeal it. Once again, it is important that this country has a sense of stability. The cooperation between the political parties can also unite the people in this country more. Do any of you also notice the rift that is growing between the Republican and Democratic party? A 2/3 vote carries numerous benefits, and it would a more practical concept.
A341

Con

"1. A 2/3 vote presents a more accurate representation of what society really wants. Any Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote, why shouldn't the same concept be applied to passing all laws?"

It doesn't give a more accurate representation of what society wants, it gives a less accurate representation of what society wants. Lets say that 55% of the representatives vote to pass a bill, that bill wouldn't pass even though only 45% of representatives were against it passing.

"2. The constant flip flopping between parties holding the majority in the Senate or House creates an environment of uncertainty for businesses. Businesses may become more hesitant to grow or invest money as new laws/regulations may have a negative impact on business."

And so you would rather dial down democracy?

"3. It is not uncommon for a political party to completely repeal a previous parties law implementation."

This is something called democracy, if the people voted in representatives that would repeal the bill then that bill should be repealed.

"4. This concept would actually encourage law makers to work together. Republicans would have to convince Democrats and vice versa. When both parties work together in this manner, the United States could see some positive results. Both parties will have to find a common ground."

No, radicalization along party lines would still be a problem, this would lead to no bills being passed. Republicans and Democrats would still maintain the infantile stance that working with the opposition to achieve a common goal is treachery. Look at how little number of bills have had actual bipartisan agreement. Do you really think that would significantly increase.

"5. Society constantly changes, therefore we need a constant to ensure that a government body does not change to quickly."

Seriously? We shouldn't do what society wants because society wants it? It doesn't matter that people are changing, the government should represent the populous.

There is an alternative motivation to all of this. This isn't about representing the people, this isn't about increased bipartisan co-operation. This is about the maintenance of the status quo and the suppression of the liberal ideology, this is the poisonous idea that what we have now is the best it will ever get.

Changing the current majority rule to something like vast majority rule would prevent any possibility of change in any way at least for a long time. This would create an environment where 33% of the population could effectively veto any law thus undermining our democracy.

I don't know where you got this idea from but I am willing to guess that it originated in fox news, republicans will soon be little more than a third of the voters in the united states.

There are so many alternate motivations here that I really doubt this is a genuine effort to help the state of democracy.
Debate Round No. 2
Andrew.Cerean

Pro

"It doesn't give a more accurate representation of what society wants, it gives a less accurate representation of what society wants"

There are over 225 million Americans who are able to vote. During the 2012 presidential election there was a voter turnout of approximately 120 million Americans. This is simply an example indicating many people in the United States did not vote. As a matter in fact approximately 1/3 of the U.S. Population did not vote. That being said, is it fair to say that a 49 to 51 vote is truly an accurate representation of the United States population?

"And you would rather dial down democracy?"

The foundation of our democracy is founded on the U.S. Constitution. A 2/3 vote is required for all amendments to the Constitution. Where do you see a problem with my argument? Democracy would not be dialed down at all, I believe it would be enhanced. When a 2/3 vote is required, Republicans would have to work with democrats for a common ground.

I want to bring up a point. Don't forget that Senators and Representatives act in the best interest of their own States and Districts. If a single party barely skips a vote through congress by a couple votes, what about the the other 49%. A 2/3 vote would actually represent an overwhelming majority of the United States, and under that premise should a law be passed.

"No, radicalization along party lines would still be a problem, this would lead to no bills being passed."

You should not claim "no bills would be passed", as that is not a true statement.. There are plenty of laws that pass with over a 2/3 vote.

"Seriously? We shouldn't do what society wants because society wants it?"

Actually, it appears to be what politicians want. Society merely elected them into office, the final decision is that of a small group of people who ran for office under the notion that they will vote a certain way. Yes, people voted them into office, but they are the ones that vote for the laws. You cannot deny that here is no corruption in congress.

"This is about the maintenance of the status quo and the suppression of the liberal ideology, this is the poisonous idea that what we have is the best it will ever get."

Can you elaborate on this? How would a 2/3 vote impact progress In any way? If republicans take control of congress again, they can decide to defund the Affordable Healthcare Act with a majority vote. In what way would you consider that progress? Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent implementing a law that can be overturned with a majority vote? Where does that make sense, please explain? As you may have noticed, current policies are very liberal, how is this an attempt to suppress liberal ideology? This would actually make it harder to change laws that have been passed by liberals.

"I don't know where you got this idea from but I am willing to guess it originated from Fox News, republicans will soon be little more than a third of the Voters in the United States"

Why would you presume that I obtained this point of view from Fox News? Also, why would I be threatened if Republicans will soon make be little more than a third of the voters. Let's keep the debate professional, you don't even know my political preference. I am merely presenting a voting method that mirrors that of the U.s. Constitution.

You still have not presented any grounds as to why a 2/3 vote is a bad idea.

It gives business owners more confidence and drastically removes uncertainty in the markets. Are you willing to claim that businesses don't base some of their decisions on political battles?

Also with a 2/3 vote congress won't have to spend a majority of its time repealing the previous arrives laws. A lot of tax payer dollars are losses through the repeals of laws. The method I propose would reduce the number of repeals.

According to ThinkProgress.com, "Last year CBS calculated that the number of hours spent on 33 repeal votes (80 work hours, or two full work weeks) cost taxpayers an estimated $48 million in taxpayer dollars."

True progress is seen when there are not constant changes of ideologies from one party to another. Ia 2/3 vote will create that stabilization as common grounds will need to be reached on every decision.

Please let's keep this professional please, and quit assuming that I am a Republican who is merely trying to hold onto a way of life. I am not a Republican. I was actually hoping I would debate a Republican.

I would just like to hear a sound defense.
A341

Con

"There are over 225 million Americans who are able to vote. During the 2012 presidential election there was a voter turnout of approximately 120 million Americans. This is simply an example indicating many people in the United States did not vote. As a matter in fact approximately 1/3 of the U.S. Population did not vote. That being said, is it fair to say that a 49 to 51 vote is truly an accurate representation of the United States population?"

The amount of people who choose to vote is irrelevant here. Obviously it would be better if more people choose to vote but that is another totally different conversation, you have to make decisions with the sample of the population you have.

"The foundation of our democracy is founded on the U.S. Constitution. A 2/3 vote is required for all amendments to the Constitution. Where do you see a problem with my argument? Democracy would not be dialed down at all, I believe it would be enhanced. When a 2/3 vote is required, Republicans would have to work with democrats for a common ground."

The reason why there are relatively few amendments to the U.S. constitution (yes this is a massive oversimplification) is because so little bipartisan cooperation. Most bills are not passed and those that are passed are usually passed on party lines [1] [2] the amount of bills would dramatically decrease even if those which were passed did have more popular support.

Even if bipartisan cooperation increased I doubt that anything like the number of bills which are passed with today's system would be.

"I want to bring up a point. Don't forget that Senators and Representatives act in the best interest of their own States and Districts. If a single party barely skips a vote through congress by a couple votes, what about the the other 49%. A 2/3 vote would actually represent an overwhelming majority of the United States, and under that premise should a law be passed."

The US is a republic, unless a bill goes against the constitution the majority gets to decide and the minority should not have a veto.

"Why would you presume that I obtained this point of view from Fox News? Also, why would I be threatened if Republicans will soon make be little more than a third of the voters. Let's keep the debate professional, you don't even know my political preference. I am merely presenting a voting method that mirrors that of the U.s. Constitution."

I saw a similar point of view which isn't really espoused anywhere else and was instantly sceptical of the origins of this idea. If you are genuine then I have no problem with the claims and most of the second half of my first argument no longer matters. I apologize if I caused any offense. When I saw this debate I saw exactly what you so harshly deny "a Republican who is merely trying to hold onto a way of life" but if you are not as you say I must assume that you are genuine and not simply hoodwinked by propaganda (like the last guy I debated this with).

"It gives business owners more confidence and drastically removes uncertainty in the markets. Are you willing to claim that businesses don't base some of their decisions on political battles?"

Of course businesses make decisions based politics, my response would be what do we value most, economic prosperity or a fully democratic system.

My problem with the proposed system is that it makes it much more difficult to pass bills, you claim that it would increase cooperation but I don't see why this would happen. The primaries already make it impossible for any moderate to get through (at least to a degree). At least for the moment the democrats and republicans will continue to each hold round half of the representatives making it as I said very difficult to pass bills.

It also has the issue of biasing the blocking of new laws and maintaining the status quo. I already alluded to this previously but I will rehash more in depth. A new bill will struggle to be passed but and old law will struggle to be overturned this means that things will remain as they are for much longer and newer ideas will take longer to be considered.

Also I personally don't like the idea that a minority could veto a bill, it seems that we should seek to have majority rule.

Again I apologize for confusing your motive and the source of your idea.

[1] http://www.policymic.com...
[2] http://www.rose-hulman.edu... (see Legislative Process)
Debate Round No. 3
Andrew.Cerean

Pro

The Minority is well represented in so many other areas of society, to include Gay Marriage. Why cant the minority also be represented in any way in regards to voting on various laws and regulations?

The reason I bring this up, is because I believe the Federal Government has far too much power. States should create their own laws and regulations. The Federal Government should not mingle in state affairs, period. The job of the Federal Government is to ensure the Constitution is upheld and Foreign Policy. The role of the Government has changed dramatically since this country has been founded.

I work in D.C., and I hope that many of you can comprehend how big our government actually is. That is why I think a 2/3 majority vote should be used at a Federal Level. If the Federal Govenrnment did not mingle in state affairs, then democracy would show its true face. Democracy is not a handful of politicians making rules for an entire country. Democracy is best presented when states are granted more power. However, there has to be a centralized governing body, that upholds the laws of the Constitution.

Let states compete against one another, and figure out what works best. There should not be a single ruling authority in this country. There should be 50 ruling authorities, each independent from one another. If you advocate for a single governing body, then a 2/3 vote should be used to pass any laws or regulations.

You don't want an entire country to rapidly change. What if some really bad decisions were made? The entire country could collapse. However, if states work independently, but abide by the U.S. Constitution (Enforced by the Federal Government), then they can change as fast as they want. If one country adopts very bad policies, and collapse, it does not affect the rest of the country. See my point?

The main purpose for a 2/3 vote is to limit the growth of the government to something that works. We already know our country is functioning properly in all areas. If we change too quickly, the entire nation could collapse, that is not democracy. As I mentioned before, majority votes should be left to the states, as the risk of collapse is drastically reduced at an individual level.

Think of it this way. View the United States as a basketball team. The Constitution is a Playbook, and the coach ensures that the players go by the book. However it is up to each individual player to do their job. If one player has a really crappy day, maybe the other players can pick up his slack. But, if you have a coach that likes to micromanage each player and dictates their every move, then technically the coach is playing the game, not the players. In the end, the team will lose.

Thanks for the debate. I wanted to spend my last discussion explaining my reasoning behind all of this.
A341

Con

"The Minority is well represented in so many other areas of society, to include Gay Marriage. Why cant the minority also be represented in any way in regards to voting on various laws and regulations?"

The question isn't whether or not minorities should be represented the question is whether or not minorities should possess veto power.

"Let states compete against one another, and figure out what works best. There should not be a single ruling authority in this country. There should be 50 ruling authorities, each independent from one another. If you advocate for a single governing body, then a 2/3 vote should be used to pass any laws or regulations."

If you want to come from a states rights perspective then you should debate over whether or not the powers of the federal government should be restricted not whether or not congress should maintain the same powers but not be able to pass bills as easily.

"You don't want an entire country to rapidly change. What if some really bad decisions were made? The entire country could collapse. However, if states work independently, but abide by the U.S. Constitution (Enforced by the Federal Government), then they can change as fast as they want. If one country adopts very bad policies, and collapse, it does not affect the rest of the country. See my point?"

I am fully for states rights but this again has little to do with the proposed debate. You say "What if some really bad decisions were made? The entire country could collapse." and yes but how would that change if it was harder to repeal those decisions. We all know that these decisions which turn out to be wrong could be made but with this system they would be even harder to repeal.

I see no problem with states rights but this is a bizarrely convoluted way of doing it.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by A341 3 years ago
A341
Andrew.Cerean should get all conduct votes. I did basically flat up accuse him of having ulterior motivations.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
Andrew.CereanA341Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Pro waited until the last round to post main logic piece. That is a low blow. Con made the point that this debate is just a convoluted method of increasing state's rights. Con logic and reasoning stronger than pro. Con actually cited sources, pro cited zero.