What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[grumbler]

That the US hasn't changed is precisely the point.
The standards for what rates as a good democracy have risen over the decades.
Once necessary compromises are no longer necessary for any other reason than its how things have always been done.

I don't believe that you changing your standards changes the US from democratic to undemocratic in any mind but your own.

[Sheilbh]

I also don't think there's necessarily a scale of democracy within democratic societies just from the nature of the system. Same as everything - I don't think there's an ideal just variations/different models with different trade-offs/emphases.

I think the democraticness or not depends more on how it's used and the interaction of the voting public with the system.

[Grey Fox]

In our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.

In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? 

Yes. The US is especially vulnerable to that situation too. 2 party system where the incumbents amass so much earning/raising funds power that any in-party criticism is shut down before hand.

[Sheilbh]

Also I think historically in the US legislative system seniority was really closely linked to power. From what I've read it was definitely a factor in the mid-20th century where you had these incredibly powerful legislators and their power came from committee chairs etc tied to seniority - I think it was particularly relevant in the fight resisting civil rights. Historically there was an advantage to voters re-electing incumbents especially in the Senate.

I think the Republicans are breaking that down and in this case I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing.

[DGuller]

It was definitely a thing that a Senator from a small state would get seniority, be able to flood their small states with perks that comes from seniority, and turn their state into their fiefdom.  It wasn't good, but today I think we're discovering that it's much better to have flawed governance than no governance.  A lot of the factors that looked corrupt also tended to encourage bipartisanship, at least for really important things.

[crazy canuck]

In our defense, the boomers have overstay their welcome in positions of power by many years.

In a democratic society, can it be said that a politician of a certain generation "has overstayed their welcome", if they keep winning democratic elections? 

It depends on the structure and strength of the democratic institutions. Yours, for example, are pretty much broken. The way in which you primary candidates all but ensures that people have to wait for an incumbent to die before they become replaced.

Add the gerrymandering that has now been endorsed by your highest court and you get a perfect storm of the electorate not actually getting a real choice when it comes to a general election.

Edit I see I was late to this party

[Sheilbh]

It was definitely a thing that a Senator from a small state would get seniority, be able to flood their small states with perks that comes from seniority, and turn their state into their fiefdom.  It wasn't good, but today I think we're discovering that it's much better to have flawed governance than no governance.  A lot of the factors that looked corrupt also tended to encourage bipartisanship, at least for really important things.

Yeah - or as I say, on the other side, use the entrenched power of seniority to absolutely kill civil rights legislation in the 40s and 50s. It could simultaneously support bipartisanship but it was also another way of that could entrench counter-majoritarian power (in a very counter-majoritarian system). I could be wrong but my instinct would also be that it would strengthen Senators in states where they are unlikely to face a real challenge - that's certainly how it helped Southern Democrats. In the modern age I suspect it would be very strong Republican and very strong Democrat states. Given the way the GOP is already expert at using the counter-majoritarian points in the US system (Supreme Court, electoral college, Senate etc) I suspect if they had another one they could possibly cause even more issues.

Purely on the Congressional level I've thought for a while that one of the things that's happening is that Republicans are becoming more like a parliamentary party. Discipline is important, they try to move as one, they don't want to rely on votes from the other side and they are fairly ideologically defined. Democrats, on the other hand, I think are more of the old American style political party - looser, less ideological definition, more open. I think that the Republicans to an extent are being driven by national trends among voters - my understanding is that in the US there is less and less regional variation or exceptions and increasingly US elections resemble parliamentary elections with national swing.

On the other hand I think that what the GOP are doing doesn't work with the American system - arguably it breaks it (even if it's how voters are behaving), which is a problem given that American voters seem to possibly prefer mixed control of the branches of government.

[Barrister]

Purely on the Congressional level I've thought for a while that one of the things that's happening is that Republicans are becoming more like a parliamentary party. Discipline is important, they try to move as one, they don't want to rely on votes from the other side and they are fairly ideologically defined. Democrats, on the other hand, I think are more of the old American style political party - looser, less ideological definition, more open. I think that the Republicans to an extent are being driven by national trends among voters - my understanding is that in the US there is less and less regional variation or exceptions and increasingly US elections resemble parliamentary elections with national swing.

But that doesn't describe what's happening in congress, like, at all.

The Democrats are the ones presenting a united front.  Nancy Pelosi didn't have much of a bigger lead than the GOP currently does but she never had these kinds of splits.  The democrats have a basic ideology that unifies them (although obviously with variation within the party).

The GOP on the other hand is not unified.  It's split between one wing that does have an ideology (Reaganite fusionist conservatism), but another wing with no ideology beyond Donald Trump.  They're unable to stay unified and are unable to even elect a speaker.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Some of the specific things blocking them getting behind a Speaker is the guys the Trumpists want tend to have at least a few policies that the 20 or so genuine moderates just absolutely loathe. Either they personally loathe it (anti-Ukraine--most of the GOP moderates are true believers in America taking a leading role in global affairs), or they politically loathe it (because they are in districts that Biden won, and fear the crazies doing things that hurt their reelection.)

[Sheilbh]

But that doesn't describe what's happening in congress, like, at all.

The Democrats are the ones presenting a united front.  Nancy Pelosi didn't have much of a bigger lead than the GOP currently does but she never had these kinds of splits.  The democrats have a basic ideology that unifies them (although obviously with variation within the party).

The GOP on the other hand is not unified.  It's split between one wing that does have an ideology (Reaganite fusionist conservatism), but another wing with no ideology beyond Donald Trump.  They're unable to stay unified and are unable to even elect a speaker.

At this immediate time, yes - but I was thinking more of the last 30 years since 1994.

I think in a way that is possibly partly why the GOP are starting to fracture now. Even in that collapse I think it is distinctive and reflects the parliamentarisation of the GOP. Even in the most divisive periods of American history parties have broadly been able to work together to elect a Speaker, to exercise patronage etc. The looseness of the parties helps in doing that, as well perhaps as a bit of light corruption. You could get Hubert Humphrey and Richard Russell voting together on issues because of a broader, looser, less ideological sense of party.

It looks like party splits or coalitions falling apart in a way that is not unusual in a parliamentary system. I'm not sure if the GOP can hold it together and I think what seems like the key divide for more moderate Republicans on one side and the hardline on the other is attitudes to January 6/whether there was a valid election. 

So I'm not sure that is reconcilable (as long as Trump is a feature of the GOP) as there are two camps with directly opposed red lines on the same issue. I'd broadly say that's a split between a group that exists within democratic politics and one that doesn't.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Looks like the far right wins--their current guy is one of the most far right guys in Congress (he lead the effort to decertify the 2020 election), is super anti-Ukraine, mega Trumper, mega religious conservative. Every single opposition moderate voter who bucked Scalise and Jordan is voting for him, so the moderate GOP has had a complete cave.

[Sophie Scholl]

It's the only way this could have ended. The "Moderate" Republican simply doesn't exist anymore in the House. They barely do in the Senate. Maybe. They haven't been tested yet. I have a feeling they will fold just like those in the House have. There are fanatics and fanatic enablers. That's it.

[Josquius]

I wonder whether long term accelerationism may not apply?
Let the republicans prove themselves further completely beyond the pale and see actual thinking conservatives abandon them.

I also don't think there's necessarily a scale of democracy within democratic societies just from the nature of the system. Same as everything - I don't think there's an ideal just variations/different models with different trade-offs/emphases.

I think the democraticness or not depends more on how it's used and the interaction of the voting public with the system.

It's not like it's a fixed scale where you can easily rank countries (though such rankings do exist). There are indeed choices to be made.

But within this some systems, like fptp and the electoral college, are clearly pretty democratically crap, whilst others give much more accurate representation.

[FunkMonk]

Well, looks like a government shutdown is inevitable next month. Can't see a MAGA-written budget passing the Senate.

I will enjoy my likely months-long furlough I guess.

[OttoVonBismarck]

My guess is with this Speaker the only possible end to a shutdown is some of the same Republicans who finally caved to MAGA, join a Democratic discharge petition--but that is a lengthy process and requires at lest 5 Republicans to have a spine for what will likely be several long weeks of withering attacks from the far right.