Would you support Bob Kerrey's proposed "George Norris Amendment"?

[OmahaBlueDog]

Bob Kerrey (D-NE), candidate for Senate, wrote this in an article in The Atlantic entitled "Congress Can't Be Trusted to Fix Itself."

I am campaigning for the U.S. Senate on a promise to propose what I will call the Norris Amendment to Article One. George W. Norris was Nebraska's most important and longest-serving senator. Frustrated with the undemocratic behavior of the Conference Committee and the Caucus, he returned to Nebraska and led an effort to amend our state's constitution to abolish both.

The Norris Amendment to Article One of the U.S. Constitution will not eliminate the Conference Committee. However, it will:


•Eliminate the partisan caucuses and the four partisan campaign committees that make compromise between the political parties nearly impossible.

•Prohibit the organization of Congress by political parties and establish a mechanism to reduce the number of committees, improve the quality of executive branch oversight, and increase the quality of congressional budgeting.


•Establish a reasonable limitation on consecutive years of service. Twelve years seems reasonable to me, though I could also make the case for 18 years.

(More at the link posted above)

Do you think that eliminating the organization of Congress by political parties would be a good idea or a bad idea? Would you support Bob Kerrey's proposed amendment?

6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes - I would support this amendment
	5 (83%)
	No - I would not support this amendment
	1 (17%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[TreasonousBastard]

1. An interesting idea to get discussion going, but...

impossible to put into effect and a great waste of time.

Political parties are in the natural order of things. Aside from maybe Vermont town meetings, name one government of any sort anywhere that does not have parties as the organized voices of various segments of the population. Parties almost immediately sprang up in the earliest days of our country even though they aren't mentioned at all in the Constitution and weren't discussed much while writing it.

Germany, Israel, and other countries don't seem to have suffered from a wealth of political parties that actually have power and seats in their legislatures.

Our problem is mainly having a bicameral legislature. Having an essentially coequal House and Senate simply magnifies the differences between the parties and gives either party one more chance to screw things up.

As for a solution? Alas, I have none.

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. In Nebraska, we have a nominally non-partisan Unicameral

In theory, it's non-partisan; in practice, it's pretty easy to figure out who is in what party.

[porphyrian]

2. Absolutely. If it works for Nebraska, expect other states to follow...

...maybe even something like this on the federal level. Career politicians and lobbyists would fight it, but fuck them.

[cali]

3. Flat no here.

I don't want to see caucuses eliminated. And just what committees would be eliminated? And thumbs down to term limits.

He's pandering to the right and he's going to lose.

[OmahaBlueDog]

7. I have come to support term limits

18 years for the Senate and the House -- and that may be too long.
24 years on the SCOTUS

In the case of the Congress, I've come to feel that the longer they stay, the more beholden they become to special interests, regardless of party affiliation.

In the case of the SCOTUS, the current system is now discouraging selection of experienced, wise jurists in favor of getting the youngest member you can possibly select who supports your ideology.

Unfortunately, political reality in Nebraska is that some pandering to the right is necessary to get elected. Progressives can get elected in Omaha and Lincoln, but for statewide office, the center is about a far left as you can get politically.

[Inuca]

4. Interesting, though probably not realistic

I have a problem though with term limits. I don't think they are a good idea. I don't see anything wrong with somebody being a "professional politician". Ideally, the longer you are doing something, the better you are getting at it.

[Chiyo-chichi]

5. I would certainly support it.

It would be dead in the water, though. Even if it passed, the parties would still caucus in effect.

The last polls I saw on his Senate race had Kerrey well behind. Has he closed the gap at all?

I met him almost exactly a year ago and got to chat with him a bit. He seems like a good man. I think he's on the money on this issue.

Especially term limits.

And these two points:

"Allow Congress to ban the unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions permitted by the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, and impose limitations on campaign spending that have not been allowed since the Buckley v. Valeo decision of 1976."

"Change the rules of the Senate and House to limit the use of the filibuster, open up the budget process, require that amendments to legislation actually relate to the subject of the bill, and increase transparency so citizens may see how their money is spent."

The whole thing is a good read.