Never mind.
i am truly impressed with your ability to find a typo. Please add that to your list of accomplishments.
Committee heads are people with long experience in both parties. Explain why that is a bad thing. Do you suggest freshmen should run them. i could give you lots of reasons that it would be bad. perhaps you could come up with a couple.
I’m not saying that seniority shouldn’t be considered, but for the Senate Democrats it is their sole criterion.
The only one.
That seems dumb.
Since your posts are replete with misspellings, grammatical errors, and a variety of other problems, you shouldn’t be too impressed. I also pointed out two glaring factual errors, but a dearth of facts is also common in your posts.
I never said it was a bad thing. If you read what I said, I generally agree with the seniority system. It does, however, pose problems when you are dealing with a legislator whose mental powers are diminished by age. I’m not sure if Byrd is there yet, but he’s well on his way. If the seniority system kept him as Appropriations Committee Chairman when he didn’t have the mental faculties to do his job, that’s a big problem.
Moderator’s Note: There’s really no need for any more discussions of the grammar and spelling of other posters, nor is there any need for any more cutely insulting misspellings (“repug”) of the names of political parties. Please continue with the discussion of the rules for picking committee chairmanships in the U.S. Senate.
It’s not mental problems in this case, IMHO, but Byrd has severe mobility problems and physically isn’t up to the task of running his committee.
You seem to be laboring under the assumption that you are a Democrat and thus have some say in how the Democrats run their party. Or, as you say, it is your business. It is not, unless your real life resume is quite impressive. In which case I apologize (pssst, instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on fancy dinners do you think I can have some of that? I’d think I’d put it to a more efficient use. Thanks).
There is an answer to this question, and it’s fairly straightforward. As Captain Amazing points out, it wasn’t always done by seniority. The leadership picked who got to hold chairmanships and wasn’t hesitant about using that as a weapon. The move towards seniority served to limit the power of leadership by taking the choosing out of their hands.
But if not leadership, then what? Seniority seems pretty fair, as a general thing (even if it does leave dinosaurs chairing everything). Personally, I’m not sure what other feasible option exists for selecting committee chairs if you eliminate these two choices. Perhaps a vote of the whole house on every chair?
You are tilting at windmills. Politics is the business of getting re elected. Those inside will and have set in place systems to gather more power to themselves,. They will not allow great changes . It would not be in their best selfish interests. That is why real campaign financing reform will not happen. These people have experience and organizations in place to insure their power and to raise money. Whether the dems have a rule or not is pretty irrelevant. The senators in place reward the spoils and the power to themselves. All committee heads are given to those with longer experience. Both parties do it.
Actually, the rules of both houses already require that. The vote is purely a formality, however, because each house invariably elects the nominee proposed by the majority party caucus.
The question then becomes, how should the caucus choose its nominees. The most logical process would be by vote of the caucus (as in the other three Congressional caucuses), but Senate Democrats avoid that by mindless application of seniority. From the party’s standpoint, this has the advantage of avoiding internecine fights which engender ill will. But of course it has the disadvantage of being inflexible and allowing no recourse in an extreme case like that of Byrd.
Learn something new every day, thank you.