Are the Speaker and Majority Leader too powerful? Reform proposals?

[President Johnson]

Are the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader too powerful? And if so, what should be changed?

I certainly find it problematic, if not undemocratic, that they both can withhold bills from the floor of the House and Senate even if said proposals would get a majority. The same is true with presidential nominations for cabinet and judicial posts. The fact that they both can prevent nominees and proposed laws from getting a vote makes both congressional chambers much more partisan. Especially the senate is used to be a chamber of less partisan hackery.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What about restoring the seniority system as while in the past it didnt go really well I think in today's environment it fits congress more than it did back in the day

[Del Tachi]

The Senate Majority Leader cannot withhold bills from the floor.  The rules of the Senate make clear that the SML is equal in rights and privileges to any other senator, he is just assumed to be acting on behalf of the majority.  If that majority evaporates (on any particular issue), any other senator can eventually force a vote.

Contrast that with the Speaker of the House, who gets to appoint a majority of the Rules Committee (which is able to set the length of debate, decide which amendments can be brought up, etc.)  The Speaker is infinitely more powerful that the Senate majority leader, which is not even a constitutional office.

[President Johnson]

What about restoring the seniority system as while in the past it didnt go really well I think in today's environment it fits congress more than it did back in the day

I'm not a fan of seniority at all. It's a disadvantage to all those fresh voices who just came in. In the 1950s, segregationist senators who were in the capitol for decades used their seniority power to steamroll civil rights legislation.

[Ferguson97]

I don't like that they're able to unilaterally prevent any legislation from coming to the floor.

[MarkD]

I don't think they're too powerful in either chamber, but I think the Senate currently has the wrong people in leadership positions. I dislike both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. They're both too partisan and untrustworthy. I lived in Missouri in 2016 and 2018 and I currently live in Illinois: I have voted for third-party candidates for the U.S. Senate in each of the last three elections cycles -- Libertarian in 2016 and 2020 and Independent in 2018. I wish the U.S. Senate was made up of nothing but non-Democrats and non-Republicans.

[darklordoftech]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Speaker should be the United States' head of government, so the position is currently not powerful enough.

[Del Tachi]

The Speaker should be the United States' head of government, so the position is currently not powerful enough.

"Head of government" and "head of state" are not legal terms (in the United States), they are mushy-gushy academic ones historically used by political scientists to describe/justify the division of political power in Westminster systems.

The U.S. is a federal system with checks and balances between three coequal branches of government.  There can be no singular "head of government" in this system.

So, are you suggesting we adopt something more like a Westminster system?  or just a change in arbitrary terms used in textbooks?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

The Speaker should be the United States' head of government, so the position is currently not powerful enough.

Talking about hot takes...

Is there even any country in the world where the 'head of government' also presides over the lower (or only) chamber? I can't think of any.

[Del Tachi]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So, are you suggesting we adopt something more like a Westminster system?  or just a change in arbitrary terms used in textbooks?

I would like to see the US adopt a parliamentary system of government, yes.

Is there even any country in the world where the 'head of government' also presides over the lower (or only) chamber? I can't think of any.

The "Speaker" of the US House of Representatives has political functions that are more like a majority leader/"leader of the house" anyway. The ceremonial presiding functions should definitely be split from the political functions. So perhaps it's more accurate to say I think our head of government should be (the equivalent of) the House Majority Leader.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

So, are you suggesting we adopt something more like a Westminster system?  or just a change in arbitrary terms used in textbooks?

I would like to see the US adopt a parliamentary system of government, yes.

Is there even any country in the world where the 'head of government' also presides over the lower (or only) chamber? I can't think of any.

The "Speaker" of the US House of Representatives has political functions that are more like a majority leader/"leader of the house" anyway. The ceremonial presiding functions should definitely be split from the political functions. So perhaps it's more accurate to say I think our head of government should be (the equivalent of) the House Majority Leader.

Well, this is different, but even in the Westminster system not totally correct e.g. in the UK the Leader of the House of Commons is a different person from the Prime Minister.

Of course there are a lot of parliamentary systems that do not follow the Westminster model (and I actually prefer them, although I am biased as an Italian).

[darklordoftech]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

It’s because of McConnell’s choice of tactics. His refusal to bring bills up for votes or give hearings to judicial nominees denies power to the other 99 Senators.

[Indy Texas]

I would prefer going back to the "old ways" of a "weak Speaker" system where all bills have to originate in committee.

I would also counter some of the undemocratic nature of the Senate by having the Senate be obligated to hold votes on any bill that the House sends it within a certain timeframe.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

Well no. It's because we went overboard on checks and balances and there are too many legislative veto-points in the system. It's perfectly reasonable to assume a consistent make-government-work-again approach.

[Del Tachi]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

Well no. It's because we went overboard on checks and balances and there are too many legislative veto-points in the system. It's perfectly reasonable to assume a consistent make-government-work-again approach.

That’s a different argument.  You can’t in good faith argue the SML is too powerful while withholding the same judgement for the SOTH.  As I’ve explained before, the SOTH has real, Constitutional power while the SML’s role is extremely limited.   

A lot of criticism of the SML in this thread is just very thinly-veiled, overtly partisan haranguing of Senator McConnell. 

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

Well no. It's because we went overboard on checks and balances and there are too many legislative veto-points in the system. It's perfectly reasonable to assume a consistent make-government-work-again approach.

What do you think of this :


https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=419500.0

[politicallefty]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

Well no. It's because we went overboard on checks and balances and there are too many legislative veto-points in the system. It's perfectly reasonable to assume a consistent make-government-work-again approach.

That’s a different argument.  You can’t in good faith argue the SML is too powerful while withholding the same judgement for the SOTH.  As I’ve explained before, the SOTH has real, Constitutional power while the SML’s role is extremely limited.   

A lot of criticism of the SML in this thread is just very thinly-veiled, overtly partisan haranguing of Senator McConnell. 

I don't agree at all. You can make a different judgement. I don't consider the current political paradigm. The Speaker of the House is a constitutional role and should wield considerable power. I would consider how the two bodies area elected in terms of the power or their leadership. The House, apart from partisan gerrymandering, is the true voice of the people of this country. The Speaker, elected through that body, is the personification of the majority. The Senate is meant to be a more conciliatory body. While it should be majority rule, that doesn't mean it should be ruled by one.

[Del Tachi]

The Senate Majority Leader is so powerful that, so long as Republicans hold 51 or more Senate seats, McConnell is effectively holds all 100 Senate seats.

If the situation was flipped (D Senate, R House), you'd be saying the same thing about the Speaker, lol

But since that position is currently held by yassss kween slay Nancy Pelosi you have no complaints

Well no. It's because we went overboard on checks and balances and there are too many legislative veto-points in the system. It's perfectly reasonable to assume a consistent make-government-work-again approach.

That’s a different argument.  You can’t in good faith argue the SML is too powerful while withholding the same judgement for the SOTH.  As I’ve explained before, the SOTH has real, Constitutional power while the SML’s role is extremely limited.   

A lot of criticism of the SML in this thread is just very thinly-veiled, overtly partisan haranguing of Senator McConnell.

I don't agree at all. You can make a different judgement. I don't consider the current political paradigm. The Speaker of the House is a constitutional role and should wield considerable power. I would consider how the two bodies area elected in terms of the power or their leadership. The House, apart from partisan gerrymandering, is the true voice of the people of this country. The Speaker, elected through that body, is the personification of the majority. The Senate is meant to be a more conciliatory body. While it should be majority rule, that doesn't mean it should be ruled by one.

But you're simply wrong - the Senate is not and cannot be ruled by one.  The SML is equal in rights and privileges to any other senator.  As I mentioned earlier, a sufficient majority in the Senate can bring up and pass anything it wants over the objection of the SML.  In contrast, the House is locked into moving legislation and amendments through the Rules Committee, where the Speaker has direct input and influence.   

[politicallefty]

But you're simply wrong - the Senate is not and cannot be ruled by one.  The SML is equal in rights and privileges to any other senator.  As I mentioned earlier, a sufficient majority in the Senate can bring up and pass anything it wants over the objection of the SML.  In contrast, the House is locked into moving legislation and amendments through the Rules Committee, where the Speaker has direct input and influence.

In terms of the power in practice, I'm not wrong. It's the same way almost every judicial confirmation was handled, with limited exceptions, until Barack Obama became President. In theory, all nominations should go to committee and eventually receive an up-or-down vote on the floor. That is not how it works in practice. The same goes for the Senate in general. You can argue that the Senate Majority Leader is equal in rights and privileges as any other senator, but it simply does not work that way in practice as a result of the rules. The House and Senate were not designed to operate in the same manner. The Senate seems to no longer function as a legislative body at all.

To anyone that opposes the power of the Speaker, they should be thankful the Rule Committee exists as it does. Until 1910, it was chaired by the Speaker. While the Speaker of the House does hold considerable power now, it had even more power around the turn of the 20th century. Even with a powerful office though, weak individuals can hold it. Hastert, Boehner, and Ryan are some of the weakest Speakers we've seen in many decades. On the other hand, we've also seen some of the most powerful Speakers in modern times (and in some, of all time) in the likes of Tip O'Neill, Newt Gingrich, and Nancy Pelosi.

[AGA]

I wonder if anyone's opinion on this has changed recently

[Del Tachi]

I wonder if anyone's opinion on this has changed recently

Mine sure hasn't.  But I'm sure all the red avatars are now on-board with giving Maj Leader Schumer carte blanche to rule the Senate

[politicallefty]

I haven't changed my view. The Senate should not function the same way as the House. That doesn't mean I support the filibuster. The Senate was partly designed to facilitate debate. That should not mean unquestioned and unlimited ability of the minority to prevent votes. By its very nature, the Senate is already considering minority rights in the sense of all states having equal representation irrespective of population. I would argue that the Senate floor should be more open to debate. The leadership of both sides should be able to move bills, amendments, nominations, etc to the floor (within the confines of specific rules, of course), with all subject to a simple majority vote.