Republicans: Screw the Democratic Process

[Sarvis]

Apparently it's ok to deny people their representation by cutting off voting before their representatives can actually vote:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 ... -shame.php

[kiryan]

Its a crappy tactic. I almost agree with you.

Consider...

1) 68 people did manage to vote. Shouldn't you be asking why those other reps didn't vote? Time too short? 68 people had enough time. More than likely, the people who didn't vote were the ones who weren't doing their job, who were actually sleeping.

2) Out of 96 people, you need 49 to pass the legislation. They had 51. Sure it would've been nice for the rest to vote, but the measure passes regardless. I assume they just opened up the vote until they got over the 50% then closed the vote so everyone could go home.

3) Surely you don't honestly want to get into a debate over the rightness or wrongness of congressional procedure when 14 democrats are literally out of state to prevent the Democratically elected representatives from conducting the people's business. And thats even before I start bashing how Obamacare was passed.

[Sarvis]

Its a crappy tactic. I almost agree with you.

Consider...

1) 68 people did manage to vote. Shouldn't you be asking why those other reps didn't vote? Time too short? 68 people had enough time. More than likely, the people who didn't vote were the ones who weren't doing their job, who were actually sleeping.

I'd be more likely to believe that if the majority of the votes hadn't been yes. I'm guessing he was just watching and stopped voting as soon as he had the majority. Were I more of a conspiracy nut, I'd say he'd pre-arranged it with a bunch of the Republicans so they would be ready to push the button immediately.

Either way though, there's no legitimate reason not to wait until everyone has voted.

3) Surely you don't honestly want to get into a debate over the rightness or wrongness of congressional procedure when 14 democrats are literally out of state to prevent the Democratically elected representatives from conducting the people's business. And thats even before I start bashing how Obamacare was passed.

Go ahead and bash Obamacare. Every representative got to vote didn't they?

[kiryan]

Did they get to offer any amendments or debate obamacare? Did they even get time to read and understand the bill?

At least the republicans allowed these democrats to introduce and debate amendments.

[Teflor Lyorian]

I'd be more likely to believe that if the majority of the votes hadn't been yes. I'm guessing he was just watching and stopped voting as soon as he had the majority. Were I more of a conspiracy nut, I'd say he'd pre-arranged it with a bunch of the Republicans so they would be ready to push the button immediately.

Either way though, there's no legitimate reason not to wait until everyone has voted.

There's no reason to wait for people to vote when the measure is already passed. Thanks for the misleading topic title, the blatant misunderstanding of voting procedures, and the manufactured rage over a normal vote concluding once passed without any wrongdoing.

[kiryan]

It really would've been more civil to wait for them to vote... even if they had been in session 2 straight days... What would another 5, 10, 60 minutes really matter? They should've let everyone vote even if there was no net impact.

I assume there are no parlimentary tactics to delay a vote once its been called. If there are, then they're completely vindicated in that Democrats were using parlimentary tactics to delay / prevent a vote.

[Teflor Lyorian]

If it were my chamber, definitely, I would have given more time for the vote to occur.

However, the democratic process is fully intact and not at all harmed by this event.

[kiryan]

to nit pick, I think it would be fair to say that the democratic process is harmed when elected representatives don't engage in respectful behavior?

I personally simply don't care if its harmed after 2 years of obama.

[Teflor Lyorian]

to nit pick, I think it would be fair to say that the democratic process is harmed when elected representatives don't engage in respectful behavior?

I personally simply don't care if its harmed after 2 years of obama.

Then the democratic process was being harmed long ago by both parties, and this is still manufactured outrage by a partisan.

[Ragorn]

To be fair, the problem isn't how long the vote was open. The problem is, the vote was called without adequate (any) time for floor discussion, then closed as soon as 51 votes were recorded. The procedure for calling house votes was not followed.

[kiryan]

Well that doesn't seem proper.

Fortunately, my guilt is assuaged in just three words made famous by the immaculated one.

Elections have consequences.

[Teflor Lyorian]

Fact: 60 hours of debate occurred before the vote was called - the longest debate of any bill in Wisconsin state legislature history
Fact: 84 proposals by the Democrats were voted down before the vote was called.
Fact: One amendment was actually adopted.
Fact: Democrats simply didn't have the votes necessary to stop the vote.
Fact: Not all Republicans voted yes.
Fact: A majority voted yes, after the longest debate in Wisconsin state legislature history, after 84 proposals being voted down, after Democrats tried to filibusterer the vote for nearly three straight days.
Fact: The roll call vote was open for 17 seconds (a typical length of time for a Wisconsin assembly vote), more than long enough to press a button.


Fact: Wisconsin Senate Democrats fled their state in order to Screw the Democratic Process and prevent democracy from being able to pass a vote. This is the equivalent of Federal Senators fleeing to Canada.

[Teflor Lyorian]

The procedure for calling house votes was not followed.

False.

go fish

[kiryan]

I don't see where it says there that the rules were followed properly... of course Ragorn didn't provide any documentation of his claim so we could understand what specifically was not followed properly.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... 24378.html

Democrats said they still had 15 speakers and had not heard Republicans invoke and carry out the rarely used rule to end the debate before voting on the bill. That rule requires a motion seconded by 15 members and then a roll call vote. Assembly Chief Clerk Patrick Fuller said afterward he was not sure whether that had occurred, saying he had heard the order to start a vote on the final passage of the bill and had done so.

--sounds like it was executed properly.

In the Assembly late Thursday, Democrats exploded and jumped to their feet after Republican lawmakers moved Walker's bill toward a vote on final passage. Democrats said Republicans had used an improperly quick vote in order to advance the bill to a stage in which they could shut down debate on the proposal.

--ok this would seem to support what Ragorn posted, but it doesn't really identify how they would've stopped the vote. It seems that perhaps they were talking about the procedural motion in teflor's article that says a majority can cut off debate and that vote is not debatable. I'm not sure how they would've stopped the vote to cut off debate, or the final vote. Maybe there is a mechanism.

During the debate Democrats offered more than 100 amendments, and Republicans voted to block about 84 of them before shutting down consideration of the rest of them. The amendments included measures to restore collective bargaining rights, eliminate the health-care provisions, and add more safeguards to the sale of state power plants.

Teflor's link also states that basically the only person who can rule on a "point of order" (violating the legistlature rules) is the presiding officer. Courts can't rule on how the legistlature conducts its business.

[kiryan]

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/ ... |FRONTPAGE

...over shock at the way Republicans broke procedural rules for the Assembly early Friday morning by not calling for a vote to end the debate. When the vote was taken Democrats were caught off guard and many did not cast their ballots.

--ok it seems that the contention is that there was no vote to cut off procedural debate. I wonder why its not being better reported and substantiated if indeed procedure was not followed properly...